AUSS 1965-V03 N 1

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
SEMINARY STUDIES
VOLUME III
JANUARY 1965
NUMBER I
CONTENTS
Burrill, Donald R., Religion, Science and Philosophical Discourse
Coffman, Carl, The Practice of Beginning the Sabbath in America 9
Kraft, Robert A., Some Notes on Sabbath Observance in Early
Christianity
18
Kubo, Sakae, The Influence of the Vulgate on the English Translation of Certain Psalms
34
V catcher , Alfred-Felix, Les 1260 j ours prophetiques dans les cercles
Joachimites
42
Walther, Daniel, Marguerite d'Angouleme and the French Lutherans: II
49
Zurcher, Jean R., The Christian View of Man: II
66
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY, BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN, USA
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
SEMINARY STUDIES
The Journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
of Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.
SIEGFRIED H. HORN
Editor
EARLE HILGERT DANIEL WALTHER
Associate Editors
LEONA
G. RUNNING Editorial Assistant
W. G. C. MURDOCH E. HEPPENSTALL R. LITKE V.
N. OLSEN
J. W. PROVONSHA A. P. SALOM W. F. SPECHT

Editorial Consultants
SAKAE KUBO
Circulation Manager
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES publishes papers

and short notes in English, French and German on the following subjects: Biblical linguistics and its cognates, textual
criticism, exegesis, Biblical archaeology and geography, ancient history, church history, theology, philosophy of religion,
ethics and comparative religions.
The opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors

and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES is published in
January and July of each year or as a double issue in July.
Annuals subscription rates of $2.50 are payable to Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104, USA.
Subscribers should give full name and postal address when
paying their subscriptions and should send notice of change
of address at least five weeks before it is to take effect; the
old as well as the new address must be given.
RELIGION, SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHICAL

DISCOURSE
DONALD R. BURRILL
California State College at Los Angeles, California
There are abroad in the world today two tacit answers to the
perennial question, "What is the meaning of life ?" Characteristic of one answer is the claim that life's meaning is only
understood through revelation. Without revelation, we are
warned, life is meaningless, it leads only to nihilism. Current
revelations are both sacred and secular, sometimes divine
and sometimes demonic. This answer is called the "religious"
answer. The second answer is that only a life of reason can be
meaningful or hold any promiseand by reason, one usually
means a life directed by the judgments of science. Now let me
not mislead the reader into thinking that the way of religion
is irrational or that the way of science does not have its
revelations, its flashes of insight, its moments of ecstasy.
I only wish to make clear what seems to me to be the sine
qua non of each.
Philosophy is not, however, satisfied with either answer.
Each, accepted separately, seems to rob man of those elements
of his nature which characterize his humanness, i.e., both
answers taken in isolation remove from him the responsibility
of being an individual. It is necessary of course to defend
this claim. But at the risk of sounding platitudinous, I must
say that we all now live in an age which ill affords any collective dehumanization of man. The continuous stockpiling of
attitudes (in the form of "systems of belief" which fall into
one "camp" or another) fares well to man's tragic extinction.
Thus it seems to me that philosophy's primary task today is
to struggle to re-establish communication between the "religious" and the "scientific" answers in order to foster our
survival. The burden of this paper is to trace the path which
DONALD R. BURRILL
philosophy seeks to sail if it is not to founder and lose its

significance on the Scylla of religion or in the Charybdis of
science.
I
Karl Jaspers once wrote that philosophyeven as Christianityhas its "saints." Socrates, Boethius, Brunoall were
martyred for steering a philosophical course. They are never
considered great philosophers, nor are their philosophical
conclusions particularly important, but they have always
been the "holy," the "set-apart" ones because they perished
for their philosophical commitment. When the scientist
Galileo recanted of his heliocentric universe theory, he needed
merely to bide his time until science revealed the foolishness
of his tormentors. His was, it seems to me, an easy truth.
It lay within the context of "objectivity." Objective truth
demands objective answers. "The book is on the table." Is it,
or is it not ? To affirm the claim or to deny it ends the case
for objectivity. But, when Giordano Bruno refused to recant,
he died on the martyr's pyre. His was a difficult truthphilosophical truth, not scientific truth. Both men acted in keeping
with the truth to which they were committed and for which
they had to stand; but one truth would suffer by retraction,
the other would not.
Galileo's objective truth is a truth which stands without
Galileo. It has the Platonic character of universality about it ;
its validity is unhistorical and timeless. However, we should
not allow such a truth to beguile us as it did Plato. It is not
absolute; rather, it depends on finite premises and a method
of attaining knowledge which involves stipulative procedures
and pragmatic ends. On the other hand, Bruno could not
recant ; for when he reached that point where he believed
that he had plumbed the depths of reality, to deny this fact
would have been to deny his inward sense of integrity; and
what is more fundamental, it would have been completely
alien to his sense of what was true to his experiencein a
PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE
phrase, it would have robbed him of his freedom to seek truth.

Galileo acted as a scientistBruno acted as a philosopher.
Let us observe what is peculiar to Bruno's philosophical
truth. (1) Philosophical truth is belief accruing from knowledge. To thinkand to think free from contradictionis
basic. "Cognition" is the primary instrument of philosophy.
The philosophical procedure is never intended to be irrational;
philosophy stands unreconciled to the attempt of any who
would establish the truth upon the irrational. The irrational
is, at its core, merely negation. Therefore there must be
nothing which is not questioned, no secret which is withheld
from inquiry, nothing which is permitted to veil itself. It is
through the process of critique that meaning, and hence
knowledge, is to be acquired. (2) The result of such a procedure
frequently acts as a descriptive iconoclasm. Philosophers
consciously seek to pull down man's irrational idols. In a
certain measure they are asking man to analyze his "reason
for his reasons." We might say, man as a philosopher carries
on a dialogue with the "gods," but as a philosopher, one is
frighteningly aware of the fact that the dialogue is onesided
the conversation proceeds only as he speaks. The gods
remain silent. Therefore, in a subordinate sense, philosophy
is a therapy one conducts with himself as long as he lives
(Wittgenstein)and this therapy has for its basic principle
the conviction that health (salvation) is only acquired when
man rigorously struggles to apply that uniqueness of his
nature which sets him off from the bruteshis capacity to
think. (3) Finally, philosophy acts as a liaison between the
"ideologists" and the "scientists," in the manner of a translator of alien languages. He seeks to keep open the lines of
communication between idealism and realism, between the
eternal and the temporal.
DONALD R. BURRILL
II
Let us consider the philosopher's conversation with both
the religious and the scientific man, beginning with his
confrontation with religion.
There are at least four significant relationships between
religion and philosophy. Initially, there is the common quest
of both after what is called the "monotheistic abstraction"
(Schrodinger), i.e., the pursuit of unity, the rejection of
desultory idols and of superficial asides, a dogged tracking of
the final answer, the right answer, the "truth," and the
commitment to this "truth," one's ultimate allegiance to the
highest value. Religion traditionally labels its answer with
the honorific title, "God." Philosophers have had many
names for their answerthe good, the true, the beautiful,
the absolute, reality, being.
On the one hand, to the religious, the philosopher's God is
pale, vapid, threadbareas Blaise Pascal says, the philosopher's God is never the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
But on the other hand, philosophy distrusts religious images
of God because they are frequently seductive idols, magnified
into proportions which fit the picture world of its pious
followers. Sometimes, in the eyes of the philosopher, religion
can have a cultic aspectan intense devotion to its conception
of the holy, to its community of believers and to its priesthood,
all combining to make many of the religiously indoctrinated
terrifyingly certain of their beliefs. Frequently the apologists of such cultic manifestations find any disagreement
with their conviction merely the aberrational mutterings
of untransformed pagans. Philosophers must guard themselves against such cultic commitmentrather, they must
accede to the individual's complete freedom in his search of
knowledge.
A second relationship important to both religion and philosophy is the principle of faith ; but philosophy has a rather
restricted use for the term "faith." Faith, philosophically,
means the willingness to hold a belief which reaches beyond

the structures of phenomenal verification. Sometimes philosophers refer to this as the "risk of faith" (Kierkegaard).
Philosophical faith involves such a riskan intellectual
gamble, or a learned surmise. And the philosopher is very
much aware that his claims might be demonstrated at some
future time, by the process of objectivity, to be sheer nonsense.
However, the philosopher does not intend that such a faith
be understood as a rearguard retreating action, i.e., an attempt
to hold to certain types of unsubstantiated nonsense until
empirical research finds us out. Rather, philosophical faith
is the awareness in man as an autonomous creature that overbelief (James) is the indispensible basket in which all descriptions of reality must be carried. Man's overbeliefs sustain
him psychologically and provide for him goals which protect
him from stagnation. Faith acts as a catalyst for creativity
and is the conceptual foundation of values; ostensibly faith
is the ground of man's idealism.
Also it seems to me that the conception of prayer exhibits a
third possible relationship between religion and philosophy.
Prayer is, philosophically, the personification of one's quest
after the absolute answer. Prayer is the legitimate mode of
"hypostatizing" what one considers ultimatethat which
demands our worship, that which we are prepared to kneel
before. Einstein once called this act "my reverence for the
mystery of the Universe." Thus the act of prayer, philosophically, has the effect of making man a devoted and responsive
adventurer in his quest for understanding, rather than indolent and passive.
Finally, the principle of revelation, which is commonly
described by the religious as the immediate and objective
utterance of God"the light for the path" (Tillich)need
not be utterly rejected by the philosopher. He too seeks the
final confirmation of realityof God, if you wish. That is to
say, he also responds to the ecstasy of the "truth," the confirmation of his thought concerning what must bewhat is
DONALD R. BURRILL
that which is not alien to his conception of what is indeed the

"light on his path."
III
Obviously much more should be said about philosophy's
dialogue with religion, but now I must turn briefly to the
philosopher's dialogue with science. Philosophy and science
are permanently wedded in one respecteach establishes
reason and the empirical process as basic to its methodology.
And yet, philosophy is, on frequent occasions, the critic of
science. Space will not permit me to engage in a lengthy
analysis of all the points of contact which these two disciplines
maintain (even if I could), so I shall limit myself to a single
issue : Man's nature.
What is man ? Flow should he be understood ? Science
shows us remarkable and highly important things about man;
but as science offers more and more clarity and precision
concerning man, it becomes more and more evident that
this insight compounds the mystery of man's final definition.
Science's need of precision forces it to abandon scope. All
of the variables necessary for an explanation of man (even
if they were all known, which they certainly are not) cannot
be subsumed in a single calculus. Some of these variables must
be sacrificed if any results are to be secured. Man is always
more than he knows about himself. In a biological sense,
man is perhaps best described as a central nervous system
with electrical impulses charging up and down certain vascular
conduits. And yet, this definition only partially describes
mannever is it adequate for understanding man as a mower
of lawns, or a woman under the hair dryer. In so far as we
make our conception of man scientific, we confine ourselves
to the world of masses in motion. We deliberately sacrifice
our conception of man as an individual. But if we seek to
preserve a "something more" about man's nature by reaching
beyond the categories of science, have we actually added
anything more to our understanding of man ? It is my convic-
tion that we have. We should not be reluctant to define

man in extra-scientific categories; in fact, to confine our
definition of man to the precise claims of science is to subtract
much of the experience which we all apprehend to be part of
man. To the question, "What is man ?" the answer, "Only
a sophisticated ape," is inappropriate. But why ? Because,
this explanation necessarily fragmentizes man, i.e., biology
only answers some of the questions which torment us concerning our own nature. All explanationsmathematical, physical,
biological, psychological, theologicalonly encompass segments of our experience.
It is necessary to understand man in a broader, a multidescriptive sense. The task has fallen to philosophy, first to
listen to science's explanations of man, recognize the significance of its objective "truth," then to listen to religion'sor
any other discipline'sreply, and thus to translate each
system's conclusions in the terms of the other, taking great
care not to destroy the actual description of man through too
severe a bifurcation, or too extreme a reduction.
But while doing this, philosophy must not forget its iconoclastic role. Frequently, for example, philosophy finds it
necessary to question some of the assumptions of religion or
science. Consider the problem which arises concerning
science's inability to give final explanations. Because science
cannot demonstrate phenomenalistically the origin of the
Universe, it does not in itself provide for religion a logical
basis for its metaphysical explanation. An argument ad
ignorantiam proves nothing. On the other hand, the scientist's
constant obsession with reductionism must also be resisted by
the philosopher. To suggest that man is adequately understood
as a series of electrical impulses is to reduce man to the status
of a mechanism, wholly abstracted from his existence as a
spiritual being. In truth, man must include the religious nature,
the man of the spirit, as well as the biological man.
Essentially, then, the philosopher can neither determine
how the theologian or the scientist must answer his questions,
DONALD R. BURRILL
nor what these answers will be. Rather, the philosopher is

the interpreter and the critic (as Socrates has urged) who
constantly calls each discipline to account for its assertions.
Perhaps Herman Melville's most lyrical lines depict the
philosopher's place in our contemporary age :
Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things
heavenly; this combination makes neither believer nor infidel,
but makes a man who regards them both with equal eye.
And so it is that philosophical truth has a strange way of

melting away. For philosophical truth in a sense goes beyond
philosophizingit is found in experience which is not philosophical but scientific or religious. And when the philosopher
speaks to this experience he is in reality no more, it seems
to me, the philosopher but the scientist or the theologian
and that is another story.
THE PRACTICE OF BEGINNING THE SABBATH

IN AMERICA
CARL COFFMAN
Pacific Union College, Angwin, California
During and since the early American colonial period, varied

concepts of the proper time for beginning and ending the
weekly day of worship have existed side-by-side, both among
closely related, and other religious groups in the United
States. With the passing of years, actual belief and practice
in this respect has experienced a variety of changes, in some
cases within the same religious group.
Many colonial Sunday-keepers in America observed their
day of worship from evening to evening, beginning on Saturday evening. Cotton Mather, grandson of the Puritan clergyman John Cotton who had fled from England to Massachusetts
in 1633, wrote of John :
The sabbath [Sunday] he began the evening before: for which
keeping of the sabbath from evening to evening, he wrote arguments
before his coming to New England: and I suppose 't was from his
reason and practice, that the Christians of New England have
generally done so too. When that evening arrived, he was usually
larger in his exposition in his family, than at any other times: he
then catechised his children and servants, and prayed with them,
and sang a psalm; .
1
Another illustration of this practice is found in a law issued

by the General Court (or Assembly) of the New Haven Colony
on January 31, 1647, which states:
Whosoever shall, within this plantation, break the sabbath
[Sunday] by doing any of their ordinary occasions, from sunset
to sunset, either upon the land or upon the water, extraordinary
cases, works of mercy and necessity being excepted, he shall be
counted an offender, and shall suffer such punishment as the
1 Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana, or the Ecclesiastical
History of New England (Hartford, Conn., 182o), Bk. 3, chap. s, sect.
3o (Vol. r, P. 253).
10
CARL COFFMAN
particular court shall judge meet, according to the nature of his

offense.2
However, the sunset, or evening, beginning time for the day

of worship has been associated more closely with various
groups who observe the seventh day of the week, or Saturday,
as Sabbath, than with Sunday keepers. Seventh-day Sabbathkeeping was introduced in America by Stephen Mumford,
who came from England and joined the Baptist church in
Newport, Rhode Island, in 1664.3 As a result Seventh Day Baptists organized their first church in Rhode Island in 1671.4
The German Seventh Day Baptists in the Ephrata community of Pennsylvania, in the eighteenth century kept their
Sabbath from six o'clock to six o'clock, beginning on Friday
evening. Note that they used the term, sunset, in connection
with six o'clock:
The Sabbath was ushered in with the first hour of the sixth day
(Friday, 6 P.M.) and closed at the end of the twelfth hour of the
seventh day (Saturday, 5: 59 P.M.), as before stated the peculiar
reckoning was adopted so as to conform to the very letter of the
law in the New Testament, wherein it states that the disciples broke
bread upon the first day . . . . It will be noted that, according to
the Ephrata reckoning the Sabbath ended at sunset (6 P.M.) of the
seventh days
The Ephrata method of daily reckoning began with the

first hour of night at six o'clock in the evening, and ended at
the close of the twelfth hour of the day which began at five
o'clock the following afternoon. 6
In 1843, W. H. Fahnestock wrote a formulation of the
beliefs of the German Seventh Day Baptists which included
2 [No author,] Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven
from x638 to 1649 (Hartford, Conn., 1857), p. 358.
3 Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America (Plainfield, New
Jersey, 1910), I, 122.
4 Benson Y. Landis (ed.), Yearbook of American Churches (New York,
1961), p. 24.
5 Julius Friedrich Sachse, The German Sectarians of Pennsylvania,
1742-1800 (Philadelphia, 1900), pp. 184-85.
6 Ibid., p. 185.
BEGINNING THE SABBATH
II
the statement, "the Sabbath terminating at sunset of the

Seventh Day, . . ."7
In a brief summary of the actions of the Seventh Day
Baptist General Conference sessions throughout the nineteenth century, entries frequently occur with reference to the
time for the beginning of the Sabbath. In 1827, the minutes
note that "it was declared to be the sense of the Conference
that the Sabbath begins at evening."8 Following this, in
1843, the Conference stated that, "according to the Scriptures,
the Sabbath begins on what is commonly called Friday
evening." A clearer statement is found in the minutes of
1849, affirming "the beginning of the Sabbath at sunset
on sixth-day."1 The Conference recorded the statement in
1863 of "the need of more public teaching in regard to the
time and manner of Sabbath observance."11 Some still
apparently were inquiring into the subject as late as 188o,
when the minutes state, in answer to a letter of inquiry, that
the Conference declared its belief "that night and the following
daylight constitute the day of Scripture."12
Several other references to the problem occur after the middle
of the nineteenth century from Seventh Day Baptist writers.
One, in 1852, reflects the argument of a writer in The Sabbath
Recorder, a periodical of the Seventh Day Baptists, with some
who oppose the evening-to-evening view, and advocate that
the Sabbath should be only twelve hours in length.13 Another
writer for the same paper, in the following year, shows an
acquaintance with the six o'clock to six o'clock time, in a
discussion of the keeping of the Sabbath on a round world." A
Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, II, 1203.
Ibid., I, 176.
9 Ibid., p. 186.
1 Ibid., p. 188.
11 Ibid., p. 192.
12 Ibid., p. 21o.
13 [No author,] "Time for Commencing the Sabbath," The Sabbath
Recorder, reprinted in Review and Herald, III (December 9, 1852), 113.
14 [No author,] "Rotundity of the Earth and the Sabbath," The Sabbath
Recorder, reprinted in Review and Herald, III (April 28, 1853), 197.
12
CARL COFFMAN
writer of the American Tract Society in 1854, in a discussion

of Acts 20 : 7, makes the statement that the Jews commenced
the day at sunset.15 Another Seventh Day Baptist, writing
in 1870, in reference to Mt 28 : 1, says plainly that the
"Sabbath closed at sunset."18
During the first months of 1844, Rachel Preston, a Seventh
Day Baptist, introduced the Sabbath to Adventists in
Washington, New Hampshire. She had shortly before visited
the home of Cyrus K. Farnsworth in Washington, and, having
become deeply interested in the Adventist views of the soon
coming of Christ, accepted their teachings. In turn, she instructed the advent believers in the Sabbath truth. About
forty accepted the Sabbath as a result of her witness, and
began to observe the seventh day."
About this time, T. M. Preble, an Adventist minister,
accepted the Sabbath and began to teach it.18 His first essay
on the Sabbath doctrine appeared in the Hope of Israel
of February 28, 1845, published in Portland, Maine.18 Preble
did not discuss the time for the beginning and ending of the
Sabbath in his first tract. However, he shortly rewrote it,
and, in a short supplement at the end of the enlarged revision
which also appeared in 1845, he introduced the time element :
Therefore, though the sun may rise at a different time in Palestine
from what it does here, yet it will make no difference in the time
of our beginning the Sabbath. "The evening and the morning were
the first day." Therefore, we should begin the Sabbath on Friday
evening, and end on Saturday evening.20
15 [No author,] "The American Tract Society, versus the New
Testament," Review and Herald, V (August r, 1854), 202.
16 A. H. Lewis, The Sabbath and the Sunday (Alfred Centre, New
York, 1870), p. 58.
17 James White, Life Incidents (Battle Creek, Michigan, 1868),
p. 268.
18 Ibid
19 J. N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week
(Battle Creek, Michigan, 1887), p. 507.
20 J. H. W[aggoner], "T. M. Preble on the True Sabbath," Review
and Herald, XXXIV (December 21, 1869), 203.
13
It was from the writing of Preble that the attention of

Joseph Bates was called to the matter of the Sabbath.21 Among
early Adventists in, and for a short time after, 1846, much of
the discussion relative to the time to begin and end the
Sabbath came from Bates' pen. From his background as a
former sea captain, and from his study of the Bible on the
subject, he concluded that the proper time to begin and
end the day was at six P.M. In his tract, published in 1846,
Bates gives the reader insight into his reasoning for the six
o'clock time :
"And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for
seasons and for days and for years." [Gn
14v. 16v. says, "the
greater light to rule the day,"from sunrise to sunset. Now there are
many modes invented for computing time. We say our day begins at
12 o'clock at night; seamen begin theirs twelve hours sooner, at
noon; the Jews commence their days at 6 o'clock in the evening,
between the two extremes. Are we all right ? No! Who shall settle
this question ? God! Very well: He called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and the evening and the morning were the first
day. Gen. i : 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at
6 o'clock in the evening. How is that, says one ? Because you cannot
regulate the day and night to have what the Saviour calls twelve
hours in the day, without establishing the time from the centre of the
earth, the equator, where, at the beginning of the sacred year, the
sun rises and sets at 6 o'clock. At this time, while the sun is at the
summer solistice [sic.], the inhabitants of the north pole have no
night, while at this same time at the south it is about all night,
therefore the inhabitants of the earth have no other right time to
commence their twenty-four hour day, than beginning at 6 o'clock
in the evening. God said to Moses "from even, unto even, shall you
celebrate your Sabbath." Then of course the next day must begin
where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the Jews obeyed and
commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening.22
There is no evidence that Bates formed his six o'clock

beginning time from any knowledge of the earlier practice
of the German Seventh Day Baptists at Ephrata. Rather,
he came to these conclusions as a result of his knowledge of a
Andrews, op. cit., p. 508.
Joseph Bates, The Seventh Day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign, from
the Beginning, to the Entering into the Gates of the Holy City, According
to the Commandment (New Bedford, 1846), pp. 31-32.
21
22
14
CARL COFFMAN
seaman's computation of equatorial time. This type of

reasoning, the result of his life background, was typical of
the articles which Bates wrote on the subject, and was accepted
by many Adventists for several years. It was from the reading
of this tract by Bates, and from listening to, and questioning
his arguments, that James and Ellen White, early Adventist
pioneers, decided to begin keeping the Sabbath.23
Bates' six o'clock time, however, did not convincingly
satisfy many of the early Adventists. James White, writing a
review of the entire matter in the year 1868, states that the
"six o'clock time was called in question by a portion of believers as early as 1847, some maintaining that the Sabbath
commenced at sun-rise, while others claimed Bible evidence
in favor of sunset."24 As the Bible was carefully studied, the
articles appearing in the early Adventist journals advocated
more and more that sunset was the correct beginning time.
It was in the atmosphere of this continuing, unsettled
problem that Joseph Bates wrote, in 1851, adding fresh
arguments for his six o'clock equatorial, beginning time.
He was aware of the various views which opposed his six
o'clock time and stated :
Much has been said in relation to the time of the commencement
of the Sabbath. Some say it should commence at sunset (Mark i, 32)
while others contend that it should not commence until midnight.
And still there are some who say the morning is the proper time.25
When Bates visited the church in Ashfield, Mass., in the

summer of 1853, he found some there advocating the commencing of the Sabbath in the morning, while others, he said,
"adhered to the Bible rule to commence all days in the week
with evening, or even, the twelfth hour of the day."26
23 Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, Messenger to the Remnant
(Washington, D.C., 1959), pp. 34-35.
24 James White, "Time to Commence the Sabbath," Review and
Herald, XXXI (February 25, 1868), 168.
25 Bates, "Time to Begin the Sabbath," Review and Herald, I (April
21, 1851), 71.
26 [A Letter] "From Bro. Bates," Review and Herald, IV ( July 7,
1853), 3o.
15
Seeing the need for a thorough study of the subject, to

clarify the time problem and to unify the Adventist believers
and churches, James White, upon meeting J. N. Andrews
in the summer of 1855 in Maine, urged him to make a careful
study of the subject and write an article which might be
presented to the believers.27 On his way to Iowa in the autumn,
Andrews stopped to see James White in Battle Creek,
Michigan, and left with him a copy of the manuscript which
presented the results of his prolonged and diligent study.
Andrews' article was read before a Conference held in Battle
Creek on November 17, 1855. The Review and Herald of
December 4 stated that "a most thorough examination and
discussion of the time to commence the Sabbath," was conducted. The sunset time was accepted by almost all who were
present at that conference.28
Andrews' article appeared soon afterward in the Review and
Herald. In his study of the time to begin the day, and the
Sabbath, he reviewed favorable and opposing evidence to the
sunset view. In addition, he discussed and evaluated new
support from the Bible, from which he showed that both the
day, and the Sabbath, began at sunset. In summary, he
stated that "there is no Scriptural argument in support of
six o'clock, as the hour with which evening commences,"
and also that "the Bible, by several plain statements, establishes the fact that evening is at sunset."29
In the following numbers of the church paper, several
letters appeared in comment on the problem in general, and
on the article of J. N. Andrews in particular. For the most
part, they expressed confidence in, and gratitude for, the
sunset position.
Bro. B. M. Adams writes from Philadelphia, Dec. 3oth, 1855:
27 James White, "Time of the Sabbath," Review and Herald, VII
(December 4, 1855), 78.
28 [No author,] "The Conference," Review and Herald, VII (December 4, 1855), 75.
28 Andrews, "Time for Commencing the Sabbath," Review and
Herald, VII (December 4, 1855), 78.
16
CARL COFFMAN
"I am, most truly, glad to see in a late No. of the paper that
Bro. J. N. Andrews, and the other brethren, have, at last, reached
the definite Scriptural time of commencing the Sabbath: at the
evening, sunsetting, instead of 6 of the clock: which latter view I
never could see had any Scriptural ground.""
Ellen G. White, writing to the believers late in 1855,

pointed them to the Bible for solution to the problem, the
source from which the sundown position was clarified by
J. N. Andrews. She said:
I saw it was even so, "From Even to Even shall ye celebrate your
Sabbath." Said the angel: "Take the word of God, read it, understand, and ye cannot err. Read carefully, and ye shall there find
what even is, and when it is." 31
Following the appearance of Andrews' study, as the years

passed, comments by the various writers of the church
paper manifested a decisive, clear witness for the sundown
time wherever a question was asked, or an article referred
to the matter. For example, J. H. Waggoner, in a tract in
1857, said clearly that "those who observe the seventh day
commence the day at sunset." 32 James White, discussing
Acts 20 : 7 in a tract sometime after 1863, the year in which
the Seventh-day Adventist church was officially organized,
clearly says that "each day commences at sunset, according
to God's division of time." 33
James White, on two occasions, and J. N. Andrews, in his
1855 article, suggested an answer as to why it took so long
for a solution to be found, in order that general agreement
might exist among Adventists on the sundown beginning time.
In a short article which accompanied Andrews' presentation
in December of 1855, James White said: "The subject has
3 [No author,] "Extracts of Letters," Review and Herald, VII
( January to, 1856), 119.
31 E. G. White, Testimony for the Church (Battle Creek, Michigan,
1855), p 4.
32 J. H. Waggoner, A Review of a Series of Discourses Delivered
by N. Fillio, in Battle Creek, Mich., March 31st to April gth, 1857,
on the Sabbath Question (Battle Creek, Michigan, 1857), p. 33.
33 James White, The Sabbath in the New Testament (Battle Creek,
Michigan, [n.d.]), p. 7.
17
troubled us, yet we have never found time to thoroughly

investigate it." 34 Andrews, in his article in the same issue,
stated that "the Seventh-day Baptists have always held
to this doctrine, but I have never happened to meet with their
views. Had I done so, I should not have remained in error on
this subject." 35 Later, in 1868, James White indicated
another reason as he wrote of Joseph Bates that "his decided
stand upon the question, and respect for his years, and his
godly life, might have been among the reasons why this
point was not sooner investigated as thoroughly as some other
points. "36
Following careful study on this point of the Sabbath doctrine
by early Adventists, the leaders and members of the church
accepted the results, particularly as pointed out by J. N.
Andrews in 1855. Since the organization of the Seventh-day
Adventist church in 1863, the sunset beginning time for the
Sabbath has always been observed by its leaders and membership.
34 James White, "Time of the Sabbath," Review and Herald, VII

(December 4, 1855), 78.
35 Andrews, "Time for Commencing the Sabbath," Review and
Herald, VII (December 4, 1855), 78.
35 James White, "Time to Commence the Sabbath," Review and
Herald, XXXI (February 25, 1868), 168.
SOME NOTES ON SABBATH OBSERVANCE IN EARLY

CHRISTIANITY
ROBERT A. KRAFT
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
In the inaugural issue of Seminary Studies, W. B. Bishai

has attempted to shed some light on the development of
the custom of observing Sunday as a rest day in addition to
the seventh-day Sabbath in early Coptic (and related) Christianity.' He suggests that it may have been under the influence of the first Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) that this situation
first came about :
It seems possible that Sabbath observance among the Copts in
Egypt and Ethiopia may have passed through three stages:
Only the seventh-day Sabbath observedfrom apostolic times
until the Council of Nicea; 2) Sunday and the seventh-day Sabbath both observedfrom the Council of Nicea until perhaps a
century or two later; and 3) only Sunday designated as a day of
public worshipa practice still observed today (p. 31).
Bishai is not unaware of the fact that he is struggling with

an extremely complicated problem when he seeks to base this
"preliminary study" on evidence drawn from the Statutes of
the Apostles, commonly known in many publications as the
Apostolic Constitutions or Canones Ecclesiastici.2 He speaks
1 "Sabbath Observance from Coptic Sources", A USS, I (1963),
25-31. Strictly speaking, by "Sabbath observance" Bishai apparently
means the observance of a day of restsee p. 27, n. 5: "Reference
to the Sabbath in the Greek and Latin versions concerns itself merely
with assembling the believers and not abstaining from work." Because
the available sources are not always so tidy in stating what is or is
not done on Sabbath (or on Sunday), the following notes usually will
be concerned with the religious function of Sabbath/Sunday in general,
without attempting to distinguish between resting from secular labor
and assembling for worship.
2 P. 26. Actually, the work commonly referred to as the "Statutes
of the Apostles" or "Canones Ecclesiastici" is not entirely identical
with the (Greek) "Apostolic Constitutions," as we shall discover.
SABBATH IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY
19
of the variety of languages and forms in which this material

has come down to us, and of how "difficult" it is "to date
the original form" of this literature. Nevertheless, he feels
safe in assuming with certain "scholars who have examined
these various documents" that the Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic
versions (his "southern group" as opposed to the GreekLatin-Syriac "northern group") of the Statutes of the Apostles
derive from a recension of the "original V orlage," which
recension was made in "the later part of the fourth century,
i.e., after the Council of Nicea and probably before the Council
of Ephesus" (p. 26). He then proceeds to cite passages from
these Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic versions as evidence for the
practice of the post-Nicene Coptic Church with respect to
Sabbath-Sunday observance.
Unfortunately, Bishai does not seem to realize how really
complicated his source problem is. His statement that all of
the "collections of various church laws and ecclesiastical
orders" to which he refers "share enough resemblances to
warrant the supposition of a common lost V orlage" (p. 26)
has missed the point of decades of modern scholarshipincluding some of the literature he cites in his notes.3 A "common lost V orlage" is not the answer to this literary labyrinth:
instead, there are at least three different and originally separate tradition-units which have been welded together to
form the most comprehensive of the works to which Bishai
refers, the Greek Apostolic Constitutions:4 (I) the Didascalia
3 See esp. the works listed on p. 26, nn. 2, 3 (including such pioneer
studies as those by P. A. de Lagarde, H. Achelis, and G. Horner), p. 27,
n. 6 ( J. Leipoldt), and p. 29. n. 12 (R. H. Connolly). Perhaps Bishai
has been confused by the arguments of Horner, The Statutes of the
Apostles or Canones Ecclesiastici (London, 1904), that the differences
between the various versions of the "Statutes" may suggest "the
possibility of there having been a lost Church Order" (p. viii)here
Homer is not referring to the entire tradition known as the Apostolic
Constitutions, but only to certain material now embedded in Book
VIII of that work!
4 On the Apostolic Constitutions, see 0. Bardenhewer, Patrology
(Translated from the German, 2d ed.; St. Louis, Mo., 1908), 75.
20
ROBERT A. KRAFT
tradition 5 (embedded in Ap. Const. I-VI); (2) the Didache

tradition 6 (included in the first part of Ap. Const. VII) ; and
(3) the "Egyptian Church Order" or Apostolic Tradition
of Hippolytus' (in Ap. Const. VIII).8
Although he shows no awareness of this fact, Bishai is
primarily concerned with the last of these divisions, the
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus as it circulated in CopticArabic-Ethiopic garb (under the name Statutes of the Apostles,
etc.). Only once in his main line of argument does he inadvertently (and thus somewhat irrelevantly) move outside this
tradition to "prove" a point by referring to the Didascalia
material.9 Partly because of his oversimplified view of the
6 For a relatively up-to-date discussion and bibliography, see J.
Quasten, Patrology, II (Utrecht, 1953), 147-52.
6 See Quasten, Patrology, I (Utrecht, 195o), 37f. Actually, this
"Didache" tradition can be further subdivided into the "Two Ways"
catechism (Did. 1-6, Barnabas 18-20), which once seems to have circulated separately (see the Latin Doctrina) and which became incorporated, in part, into the first section of the "Apostolic Church Order"
manual in the East (see Quasten, op. cit., II, 119-2o) ; and the more
specifically ecclesiastical materials (Did. 7-15) which resemble much
more closely the usual subject matter of related church manuals
(Didascalia, Apostolic Traditions of Hippolytus, remainder of the
"Apostolic Church Order," etc.).
See Quasten, op. cit., II, 18o-94; also B. S. Easton, The Apostolic
Tradition of Hippolytus (New York, 1934) ; G. Dix, The Treatise on the
Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome (New York, 1937).
8 The prayers (and other materials) of Ap. Const. VII. 33ff could
also be included here as a 4th (5th, 6th, etc.) tradition which has been
incorporated into the present document; see, e.g. J. M. Harden,
The Ethiopic Didascalia (New York, 192o), pp. x-xi.
9 "Comparing this attitude of the southern group of churches
[i.e., observance of both Sabbath and Sunday] to that of the northern
group as illustrated by the Syriac version of the Statutes of the Apostles
[sic!], we find a sharp difference of opinion" (p. 29). Actually, he cites
from the Latin and Syriac Didascalia (not Statutes) here. It is true
that the Latin passage refers only to the Lord's Day observance
and does not mention Sabbath here (section 13), but the parallel
Greek material in Ap. Const. II. 59 includes reference to both Sabbath
and Sunday assemblies (is this what Bishai alludes to in n. 5 on p. 27 ?),
while the main textual tradition of the Ethiopic Didascalia (12;
Harden, op. cit., p. 78) speaks only of the "Christian Sabbath which
is (the day of) his holy resurrection [thus, probably Sunday, although
2I
sources, however, he fails to see that the evidence he is

adducing has only secondary relevance for an examination
of Coptic Christianity. That is to say, granted that the circulation of this material in the Coptic language implies that
many Copts may have agreed with its contents, it is clear
that the Coptic (-Arabic-Ethiopic) is a translation from a
Greek original." Thus there is something suspicious in Bishai's appeal to this translation in support of his theory that
the practice of "the non-Hellenistic southern churches of
Egypt and Ethiopia" differed significantly from the practice
of the "Hellenistic Christians" with regard to Sabbath/Sunday
observance in pre-Nicene times (p. 3o and n. 17).
This suspicion is borne out by a closer look at the passages
adducedthe "Coptic statute regarding Sabbath observance"
which Bishai cites as prime evidence (p. 27) is in fact a verbatim translation from Greek and is preserved in a parallel
Greek form in Ap. Const. VIII. 33.2:
Greek Ap. Const.11
Sahidic "Statutes" 12
ipyaUcsecoaccv of 8otiXot.
newre
Let the slaves 13 work

five days,
elsewhere this version of Didasc. argues that Jesus actually rose on

Passover Sabbath (!) and appeared on Sundaysee esp. sec. 3o, 36,
38]"another Ethiopic manuscript mentions both Sabbath and Sunday in this passage! Bishai's "northern"/"southern" distinction is
frustrated here.
10 See Quasten op. cit., II, 181f: "Of these oriental versions, the
Sahidic alone is based directly on the Greek. . .. It contains many
transliterated Greek words, so that the original terms are obvious.
. The Arabic was derived from the Sahidic. . .. The Ethiopic . . .
is thrice-removed from the original, having been done from the Arabic"
(or from an older form of the Arabic). Perhaps this is also the place
to note that, in fact, the Coptic "version" to which Bishai refers itself
contains two different Coptic versions of the "Egyptian Church Order"
material; see Homer, op. cit., p. vii"The Saidic, Arabic, and Ethiopic
preserve two forms of these same canons."
11 Cited from the ed. by F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones
Apostolorum (Paderborn, 1905).
12 Translated literally from the Coptic text given by Bishai, p. 27
(from Leipoldt's ed.). I have italicized Greek words which are simply
transliterated in the Coptic.
13 Certainly not "servants (of the Lord)" as Bishai renders it
22
ROBERT A. KRAFT
But on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day

ack(3i3a-rov Se xoti xuptaxir
let them devote themselves
azoXaUTcocrav
to the church
6v
ixx)01cri.a
that they may be instructed
Sta Try StBacrxaMav
in piety.
rilc dicrepsi.a.c.
The Sabbath, indeed, because
TO t.tiv yap crapf3a-cov
God himself rested on it when
eti-col.LEV
he completed all the creation,
87ilitoupytac A6yov gzetv,
and the Lord's Day because
TY,v Se xuptaxir
it is the day of the
avan-cciaecoc.
resurrection of the Lord.
Thus the statement that such passages are exclusive to

the "southern group" (Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic) as opposed
to the "northern group" (Greek-Latin-Syriac) is incorrect.
On this point alone, the framework of Bishai's argument
collapseswhich is not to say that his conclusions are
necessarily false, but only that they do not follow from the
evidence he cites.
Additional evidence that what Bishai refers to as Coptic
practice also obtained in certain Greek-speaking "Hellenistic
Christian" communities in the 4th century is abundant. In
fact, Bishai himself claims that Athanasius, "who was a
chief Egyptian delegate at Nicea, in his canons dated around
A.D. 366 points out the necessity of observing both days"
(p. 3o); but the "Egypt" which Athanasius represented was
"Hellenistic" (Alexandria), not primarily Coptic! 14 Similarly,
(p. 27). The context of both Greek and Coptic requires here "slaves"
or "workers" in an economic-social sense.
14 Does Bishai think that Athanasius wrote in Coptic ? Note his
reference on p. 31, n. 18, to "the Coptic original" as contrasted with
"the Arabic version" of the so-called Canons of Athanasius of Alexandria which were edited and translated from the Arabic and Coptic
versions by W. Riedel and W. E. Crum (London, 1904). It is not clear
that these canons actually are derived from a work of Athanasius,
although Riedel favors that view (Riedel, op. cit., p. XXVI); in any
event, the canons were originally written in Greek and must be dated
within the period 350-500 (Riedel, op. cit., p. XIV). For similar material attributed to Athanasius, see the Greek Syntagma Didascalias
2 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XXVIII, 835ff) which forbids "guarding"
(packvretv) Sabbath (as a day of rest ?) but does speak of both Sabbath and "Lord's Day" as special days of worship.
23
Timotheus, Bishop of Alexandria in 381-85, speaks of the

necessity of abstaining from sexual relations (xoLvcovia ricp.ou)
on "the Sabbath and the Lord's Day [Sunday] . . . because on
these days the spiritual sacrifice [the eucharist] is offered to
the Lord."15 Epiphanius of Salamis (Cyprus) also bears witness
to the special place of the Sabbath alongside of Sunday as
a day of Christian gatheringsee his "Exposition of the
Faith" 24 at the end of his Panarion (finished c. 38o).16
The Greek form of the Didascalia tradition, which probably
dates from the 4th century (from Syria ?), exhorts the people
not to forsake the daily assemblies, especially the Sabbath
and Sunday days of rejoicing."
Various other sources supplement this material by giving
us a more precise picture of what was (or was not) involved in
"Sabbath observance." The 29th canon of the Synod of
Laodicea (c. 38o) argues against a "judaistic" manner of
keeping the Sabbathi.e., in idleness:
For it is not necessary that Christians judaize and have leisure
on the Sabbath, but let them work on that day, and give precedence
to the Lord's Dayif indeed they are able to have leisure as Christians.18
But the same Synod prescribes that "the Gospels along with
other scriptures be read on the Sabbath" (Canon 16), and
recognizes the special nature of the two days, Sabbath
15 Responsa Canonica (Migne, op. cit., XXXIII, 1305): a clvayx716
nveuSe -re aciPPaTov xai stv xuptaxtv arrixecreat Sei St& 're iv aircak
izattxtv Ouatav etvapipecrOat
xupk (with reference to i Cor 7: 5 ) .
18 Migne, op. cit., xxiv , 832A: v TtaL S6 'c67rotq xat iv -col% csar3Paat
auvgetc invreAotiatv.
17 Ap. Const. 11.59.3 (see above, n. 9): [..t&AGCSTGL ai iv 'r ktipa -ro5
xuptaxy) arcouSatcrceptac
craP(3Occou xal iv st TOi.> xuptou avacrTaaiwp
evravrot-re. Note also Ap. Const. V.20.19: rcolv librrot csOcflpwrov &vet)
Tou ivec [sob' nOtaxa] xat rcaaav xuptaxtv e7rtTeXo5vTec cruv6Soug eUcppatvecree ivoxoc yap dtvapTtac eaTOGL 6 'riv xuptaxtv vlaTeUtov, tiiipccv avacr-rricsztoc oiicrav
18 Synod Laodicea, Can. 29: ern. oU Set Xptcrrtavok touSatCetv xat iv
TW cra(3(3ary crxoXgetv, &XX& ipycgecrOat aUToUg iv cerriii -rtv Se xuptaxtv
npoTtlisexivrac, et ye SUVOMTO (3X0A&ECV (i)g XptcrTtavot. et Se eUpseetev
touSatcrTat ia-rcoaav tiv&Oella nap& Xpurci) (ed. Mansi).
24
ROBERT A. KRAFT
and Lord's Day, during Lent (Canons 49, 51). A similar

attitude is attested by the Christian editor (from AntiochSyria ?) who expanded the Ignatian Epistles at about the
same time :
Therefore let us no longer observe the Sabbath in a judaistic
way and rejoice in idleness.... But each of you should observe
Sabbath in a spiritual way, rejoicing in study of laws.... And
after keeping the Sabbath, let every lover of Christ celebrate the
festival of the Lord's Daythe resurrection day, the royal
day, the most excellent of all days.19
Finally, if we are allowed for the moment to treat the Apostolic

Constitutions as somewhat of a unity representing 4th-century
Hellenistic Egyptian Christianity, we will find that it not
only refers to the Sabbath and Sunday festal gatherings
which commemorate creation and resurrection respectively,2
and advocates rest from usual labors on these two days
(see above on Bishai's main text, Ap. Const. VIII.33.2), but
it also guards against leaving the impression that a person
should be idle on the Sabbathfor creature as for creator,
Sabbath rest means study of the laws, not idleness of hands.21
The Apostolic Constitutions and related literature are also
quite clear that one is not to fast on the Sabbath, except at
Passover/Easter time in memory of the Lord's death/burial
(see Ap. Const. V.14.20; I8.If; 20.19 [above, n. 17] ; VII.23.3f ;
etc.)an attitude which is widely attested by other contemporary witnesses such as Basil of Cappadocia (De jejunio, horn.
; 11.4.7), John Chrysostom of Antioch (In Gen., horn.
13.2), and even Augustine of Hippo (Ep. 36, ad Casulanum
2.4).
12 Pseudo-Ignatius, Magnesians 9.3-4 (ed. Funk-Diekamp): t.optiTt
oi5v aocppocsioNlev touSoCim.74 xcci dcpyioccc xccipoy-cec . . . &AA' 6mo-cog 151..lv
aa(3(3ocTLUTo) rcveumoc-ccx6ic, meA6-cy)v6mcov xacipcov . . xod tI.ETex TO (54Pa-ricrac
Myoccr-rdeatmov, Tip PCCCYCMSC4,
iopTgiTco rcic cpcX6xpcccroc T>7v xuptaxim
Tily 57cm-coy 7cccaiLy TG-Al limepc7)v. See also Trallians 9: 5-6.
20 Ap. Const. VII.23.3 f.: TO acif3i3o4Tov ivToe Hai Tip xuptcocip
yy
tyTt TO [Lev 811.1.LoupyEac 6aTiv OrrOliv-vcc, TO Se CocosTdcaeo.K.
OTt iv ccirr6;) xocTercaucmc circa TeLy gpycov eig
21 Ap. Const. VII.36: .
crappcc-ccomOv tI,EX6-nw v6m.cov,
tLEX6T7p TiLy creLy v6mcov . . acci3(3m-ccei.6
crappocortetv iveTeiXw, 0?) rcpOcpccatv dcpyiac St.aotic.
ou xetp"thv ecp-riccv
25
This is not to deny that the widespread practice of Coptic

Christianity at this time was also to observe both Sabbath
and Sunday. Bishai is on solid ground here, as the numerous
passages listed by C. Butler in his edition of the Lausiac History of Palladius show.22 But it should be emphasized that
this is not a practice limited to Coptic Christianity. Both
Hellenistic Egypt and the rest of the Hellenistic Christian
East knew of the dual observance of Sabbath and Sunday in
the 4th century, and had recorded its interpretation of what
was meant by "Sabbath observance," in terms of "rest"
and idleness. There was no "sharp difference of opinion"
(p. 29) between Bishai's "northern" and "southern" groups at
this timeat least, not in the sources he has selected.
Is it possible to move behind the 4th century to determine
how ancient this dual observance of Sabbath/Sunday may
have been ? Unfortunately, sources for Coptic Christianity
prior to that date are not readily available. But if we can trust
those scholars who trace the "Egyptian Church Order" tradition back to Hippolytus and his Apostolic Tradition, the
dual observance in Hellenistic Christianity may be at least
as old as the early 3d century and probably much older.23
Although it is not possible to determine with precision from
what portion of early 3d-century Christianity Hippolytus had
derived his traditions, it is probable that he spent his early
life somewhere in the Hellenistic East (Alexandria or An22 C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius, II ("Texts and
Studies, VI," Cambridge, 1904), 198 f, refers to such passages as
Vita Pach. 20 and Asceticon (or Paralipomena) 15; Hist. Mon. 23;
Apophtegmata, Poemen. 3o and Sisoe 2; Vita Schenuti (ed. Leipoldt,
op. cit., p. 132); Vita Onuphrii II; etc., along with the references in
the Lausiac History itself (7.5; 14.3; 20.2; 25.4; 48.2). See also L. M. 0.
Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution (5th ed.,
New York, 1923), pp. 23oh
23 Quasten, op. cit., II, 181, dates the writing of Hippolytus'
Apostolic Tradition to "about the year 215." Of course, there is no
guarantee that the dual observance was part of the original form of
the Ap. Trad., but the burden of proof would seem to rest on the person who denies this; in any event, the dual observance was already
in the Greek form of the tradition, as we have seen.
26
ROBERT A. KRAFT
tioch ?) before he came to Rome.24 Thus the dual observance

may have been an established Eastern (Hellenistic) practice
at the end of the 2d century.
There are, indeed, a few additional clues from 2d-century
Christian literature which suggest that some Christian communities habitually kept the Sabbath at that early date.
(r) Didache 8:1 retains the Jewish name 7C0Cp occrxeA ("day
of preparation" before the Sabbath) for Friday, which might
indicate that Sabbath was still observed. It could be argued,
per contra, that TUX pocaxeuii here has simply become a standard
designation for the 6th day of the week and does not carry
any implications concerning Sabbath observance. The JewishChristian flavor of the Didache in general, however, along
with the apparently anti-Pharisaic polemic in 8 :if and the
preservation of the Didache tradition by the Eastern communities which maintained the dual observance (it is embedded in
Ap. Const. VII) argue against such a neutral use of notpoccrxeuil.
In 14:1, the Didachist also speaks of observing the eucharist
on the xoptax4)the weekly Lord's Day (or does it mean
Easter Sunday ?)showing that the first-day observance also
seems to have been practiced by the communities which the
Didache tradition represents (Syria ? Egypt ?). (2) The Martyrdom of Polycarp also uses the designation TM pocaxeu4) (7:1)
and does not hesitate to record that Polycarp's death fell
on (and was commemorated on ?) a "Great Sabbath" (8:r ;
21 a), despite the hostile attitude to the Jews exhibited
elsewhere in that document (see 12 :2 ; 13:1). Thus it may be
that the churches of Asia Minor among whom the Martyrdom
circulated also retained some contact with Sabbath observances in the later zd century. Although neither the Martyrdom nor the preserved Epistle of Polycarp makes mention
of Sunday observance, it would be difficult to conclude from
24 See Quasten, op. cit., II, 163: "There are many reasons for believing that he was not a native Roman nor of Latin origin at all.. ..
His entire mentality ... indicates that he came from the East,"
possibly from Alexandria.
27
this that Polycarp and those who revered him did not in fact
also observe the Sunday day of gladness. (3) There probably
is more than symbolic significance to logion 27 of the Gospel
of Thomas: "If you do not fast to the world, you will not
find the Kingdom; if you do not keep the Sabbath as a true
Sabbath, you will not see the Father."25 These sentiments
circulated in the zd century in Greek, and some years later
they were translated into Coptic also. They would seem
to find their life-setting in a community which in some
way observed the seventh-day Sabbath, although it is not
at all clear whether this community also observed Sunday.
Furthermore, the 2d century provides us with another
type of evidence that certain Christians may have continued
to observe the Jewish Sabbath; namely, by the occasional
polemic against such a practice. (1) In the opening years
of that century, Ignatius of Antioch warns the Magnesians
in Asia Minor not to live "in accord with Judaism" but to
follow the insight which even the divine prophets of old
had received through God's grace and to live "in accord with
Christ Jesus," God's Son and God's Logos sent to man.
If, then, those who walked in the ancient customs [i.e., the
aforementioned prophets] came to have a new hope, no longer
`sabbatizing' but living in accord with the Lord's lifein which
life there sprang up also our life through him and through his death
. how shall we be able to live apart from him, of whom the proG. Thom. 86.17-2o as known from Pap. Oxyrhynchus 1.2: &Ca
vria-reUaryroct -r6v x6crp.ov,
etipyroct. Tin) flacu.Aciav Toti ()cob'
xat
crap p C4TECYCLTE TO
PCCTOV, OUX 6t1JECTOC T6<V> 17r (C4T1) p cc.
In this connection, note that Justin, Dial. 12. 3, presents a moral =
spiritual interpretation of "keeping the Sabbath" (right conduct)
which is in general accord with the approach of Barnabas 15 (see also
Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos 4). "Sabbath" also became a symbol in the
Gnostic tradition which preserved the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, as
Gospel of Truth 32.18ff showsthe "Sabbath" means the "Day" in
which it is not fitting for salvation to be idle. Nevertheless, it does
not necessarily follow that the Gospel of Thomas logion is irrelevant
in discussions concerning the literal observance of the seventh-day
Sabbath in some branches of 2dcentury Christianity, especially in
view of other "Jewish-Christian" tendencies which are embodied in
the Gospel of Thomas.
25
28
ROBERT A. KRAFT
phets also were disciples, since they had received him as teacher in the
spirit? Wherefore, he whom they justly awaited when he arrived,
raised them from the death.... Thus, we should be his disciples
we should learn to live in accord with Christianity.... It is absurd
to proclaim Jesus Christ and to `judaize'. For Christianity has not
placed its trust in Judaism, but vice-versa.26
is certainly illegitimate to see behind this context a simple

(!) Sabbath/Sunday controversy. It is rather a contrast of
two different ways of livingone apart from 'grace' (`judaizing'), the other in the power of the resurrection life.
Nevertheless, one of the sets of slogans used to characterize the
conflicting positions does focus on at least the Jewish Sabbath
observanceit is not so clear whether Sunday as a day in
contrast to Sabbath is in the picture at all. Probably the
contrast intended is that between Sabbath solemnity and
idleness (as later Christians often alleged) and the resurrection
life (re-creation) of the Christian. As we have seen (above,
n. 19), the later editor (and expander) of the Ignatian corpus
interpreted this passage in terms of Sabbath/Sunday issues,
but this is by no means decisive for the meaning of the passage
in the 2d century. (2) Less ambiguous is the Epistle of
Barnabas, which possibly reflects the situation in the outlying
districts around Alexandria a few years later. The author
condemns "the present (Jewish) Sabbaths" as unacceptable
to the Lord, and exhorts his readers to "observe the 8th
day with gladness, en which Jesus also rose from the dead
and, when he had been manifested, ascended to heaven."27
It
26 Magnesians 8-io (compare Philadelphians 5-6). The most pertinent

words, in Magn. 9: I, are: et oiSv of iv TccaceLotc Irpecyp.ocolv dLvoLcrrpocpkv-rec etc xoLtv6rryroc Dcrri8o; ijX0ov, mxiTL crappalgovrec, &A?& xoLvi
111.LL7)v aviTeaev Sc' aurou xai -roi5
xuptaxiiv CoyEiv Z wvrec, iv xcci
. I am indebted to the recent article of F. Guy,
OIX.V&TOU CCUTOU
" 'The Lord's Day' in the Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians,"
A USS, II (1964), 1-17, for the light it has shed on this passage by
calling attention to the fact that the text-critical grounds for reading
xuptocxhv instead of xupLoodiv t (J.Av (as the best Greek witness has)
are indeed slim. As the above translation shows, I do not take xupLocx
here in the technical sense of 'Lord's Day' which it came to acquire
(see below, n. 2 8 ).
27 Barnabas 15.9: 8LO xcei ayot.t.ev -rip) ill.tepotv Tin1 6y86niv sic elicppocrUvriv
SABBATH IN EARLY. CHRISTIANITY
29
Bishai's remarks on the arguments cf Justin (representing

Ephesus-Rome ?) and Tertullian (North Africa) in favor of
the excellency of Sunday worship rather than Sabbath observance during the 2d century are also relevant here.28 Nevertheless, as we have seen, this anti-Sabbath attitude was not
characteristic of all Greek-speaking Christians in the 2d (or
3d, or 4th) century.
The central thesis of Bishai's argument, however, still
remains to be considered: Did Coptic Christianity observe
only the Sabbath rest until the mid-4th century, when
Sunday observance was added under the influence of Nicea ?
The failure of adequate evidence from Coptic Christianity
prior to the 4th century makes it impossible to discuss
this hypothesis with precision. An important aspect of the
problem is the date at which one can speak of "Coptic"
Christianity as an entity to be compared with other types
(e.g., "Hellenistic") of ChristianityBishai implies that such
a distinction is possible "from apostolic times" onward (p. 31),
but this is open to serious doubt. Certainly there were Coptic
and Ethiopian Christians soon after Christian missionary
work began, but no distinctively Coptic Christian community
iv t xat o 'brroik dcv66rn ex vexp6v xod pavepcoOelc cicve(37) dig oUpa.vok.
28 P. 3o. See esp. Justin, Apology 67. 3-7 (Christians assemble
on the "day of the Sun" in which God began creation and Christ
both rose and appeared), Dialogue 24.1 (the Christian mystery of
the "8th day"), Dial. 41.4 (the "8th day" on which Jesus rose is
the best of all days), Dial. 138. r (the "8th day" in which Christ appeared after he had risen); also the anti-Sabbath polemic in Dial.
To.i; 18.2f; 47.2; etc. Obviously Justin's type of Christianity did
not observe the Sabbath, but only Sunday. Sunday also is important
for the 2d-century author of the Gospel of Peter, who uses xopt.cxxil
as a technical designation for the Lord's Day (sec. 9, 12)there does
not seem to be any anti-Sabbath sentiment here, however. By contrast, the "Epistle" to Diognetus is clearly anti-Sabbath (4:1-3),
although the Lord's Day is not explicitly mentioned in comparison.
Tertullian argues for worship on "die solis" (e.g., Ad Nationes 1.13.r ff)
and against Jewish Sabbath solemnities (e.g., Adv. Jud. 4; De jejunio
14: iff), but also admits that some Christians continued to keep
Sabbath in some sense (ibid., 14:3the Passover Sabbath ?).
30
ROBERT A. KRAFT
emerges until the middle of the 3d century." Prior to that

time, it would seem that whatever Christian communities
did exist in "non-Hellenistic" Egypt used primarily Greek and
not Coptic as their official language; since Greek was the political language of Egypt at this time, as well as the language of
the Egyptian Church, organized around Alexandria, they were
not particularly isolated from "Hellenistic Christianity." 30
This, plus the fact that the multitude of Coptic texts
which refer to the observance of both Sabbath and Sunday
in 4th-century Egypt give no hint that this is a new practice,
seriously undercuts Bishai's thesis. It would seem that as
peculiarly Coptic Christianity developed (in the 3d century ?),
it adopted and translated certain traditions current in the
Hellenistic Eastlike the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus.
Thus from its very beginnings, "Coptic Christianity" observed
both Sabbath and Sunday, because such was the practice
taught in its adopted traditions!
Furthermore, Bishai's reference to "the fact that the Coptic
bishop who represented the Copts at Nicea is known to have
agreed to hold the Easter festival ["Pascha" ?] on Sunday
instead of the Jewish passover" (p. 29) is of much less relevance than he supposes, since it deals with an entirely separate
(though remotely related) issuenamely, the perseverance
of Quartodeciman views in Egypt over a' century after
a similar debate had been resolved in Hellenistic Asia
Minor. There are numerous passages in the Didascalia as
well as in the "Egyptian Church Order" tradition which
29 See Quasten, op. cit., III, 146ff ; A. von Harnack, Mission and
Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (Translation;
2d ed.; London, 1908), Vol. II, IV. 3.3.7 (esp. pp. 175ff) ; J. Lebreton
and J. Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church III (Translated
from the French; New York, 1946), 1.19.1.
3 Note, for example, the numerous Greek papyri containing certificates of sacrifice and connected with the edict of Decius around
the year 25o (A. Bludau, Die iigyptischen Libelli and die Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Decius, "Romische Quartalschrift Supplement,"
Vol. XXVII, r93r); the Council of Alexandria in 32o/21 at which some
ioo Egyptian bishops were represented also illustrates this fact.
reflect this practice of Syrian and Coptic Christianity, to

observe ( Jewish) Passover on 14 Nisan as part of (if not the
climax of) the Easter Season.31 Bishai's reasoning that "it
does not seem sensible that [the Copts] should have honored
the resurrection day itself [i.e. Easter] on the Jewish passover
if they [regularly] observed Sunday as a weekly rest" (p. 29)
is rather strange in the light of the earlier Quartodeciman
controversy.32 As far as can be determined from the sources,
the Quartodecimans were not at all considered strange for
their weekly observancesapparently they kept the Lord's
Day as did their opponents.33 But on the annual Easter
festival, they retained the Jewish mode of lunar calculation
to determine Passover (14 Nisan), no matter on what day
of the week it might fall, while their opponents centered the
Easter observance around the fixed day of Sunday following
the Jewish Passover. The Eastern Christian sources with
which we are dealing reflect a compromise position in which
both the Passover fast (including Passover Sabbath) and the
Easter festal celebration (on Sunday) were observed in commemoration of the Lord's death and resurrection respectively
(e.g. Ap. Const. V. uff ; VII.23 ; see n. 31 above).
By way of summary, it seems that the following conclusions
are in line with the evidence: (r) Sunday observance was being
31 E.g., Syr. Didasc. 21; Eth. Didasc. 29f; Ap. Const. V.13-14,
17-20; Sahidic Statutes 55 and 75; Arabic Statutes 66; Eth. Statutes 67;
Ap. Const. VIII.33.3f. Earlier Eastern evidence for this tradition
is found in the 2d-century Epistle of the Apostles 15 (or 26).
32 For a discussion of the 2d-century controversy, see F. E. Brightman, "The Quartodeciman Question," JThS , XXV (1923/24), 254-70;
C. W. Dugmore, "A Note on the Quartodecimans," Studia Patristica
IV (" Texte and Untersuchungen," LXXIX [Berlin, 1961]), 411-421.
33 They may have kept both Sabbath and Sunday, although if
this were true we might also have expected some reference to it in
the sources. Note that Polycarp was a Quartodeciman according to
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V.24.4 and 14. We have already made some enquiry concerning Polycarp's attitude to the Sabbath/Sunday question
(above, pp. 26f.). Another alleged Quartodeciman, Melito of Sardis
(see Eus., Hist. Eccl., V. 24.5), is said to have written a treatise "On
the Lord's Day" (Eus., Hist. Eccl., IV. 26.2).
32
ROBERT A. KRAFT
urged instead of Sabbath rest as early as the beginning of

the 2d century;34 (2) at the same time, a considerable
segment of the Christian population continued to observe
the (Jewish) Sabbath in some form or otherapparently
this continued to be a live issue on into the 4th century
in some areas; (3) some Christian communities observed
both Sabbath and Sunday at least from the 3d century, and
probably earlier, but there was a widespread attempt to divorce Sabbath observance from the, ideas of solemnity (fasting) and idleness by making it a day of meditation and rejoicing (like Sunday)that is, Sabbath "rest" was interpreted in a much wider sense than Rabbinic Judaism would
permit. In the 4th century, when the Church and the Roman
Empire were rapidly moving towards alliance, thus allowing
the "ecumenical" Church to emerge visibly (and vocally),
the official observance of Sunday rest gained political as well
as religious overtones. This is clear from Constantine's law
of 321 which commanded all the urban population to "rest
on the venerable day of the Sun" while allowing those who
pursue agriculture to sow or plant on whatever day is suitable;35 and from the various Church Councils of the 4th
century which spoke on this problemof Elvira, Can. 21
34 For further details, see S. V. McCasland, "The Origin of the
Lord's Day," JBL, XLIX (1930), 65-82; and more recently W.
Rordorf, Der Sonntag (Zurich, 1962) ; Dugmore, "Lord's Day and
Easter" in Cullmann Festschrift (Suppl. to Novum Testamentum,
VI [1962]), pp. 282-92. No doubt the complex problem of the separation of Church and Synagogue in the 1st and 2d centuries, with its
inevitable antagonisms, was a factor here; also the anti-Jewish edicts
of emperors like Hadrian would have provided added incentive for
Christians to dissociate themselves from certain Jewish practices.
On the Sabbath issue, appeal was made to the words and deeds
of Jesus by the early church; see F. W. Beare, "The Sabbath
Was Made for Man ?" JBL LXXIX (1960), 130-36. But Beare has
certainly gone too far with his statement on p. 136 that "one thing . . .
is clear, . . . that the Christians did not keep the sabbath, and .. . their
attitude brought upon them the fiercest attacks."
35 Cod. Justinianus 1I1.12.3 (Corp. fur. Civ. 2.127)translated in
H. S. Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (2d ed. ; London,
1963), p. 26.
33
(c. 306) ; of Laodicea, Can. 16, 29 (see above, n. 18). Here

was a matter for Christian and Roman unity. Nevertheless,
much of Eastern Christianity in the 4th and 5th centuries
continued the older practice of observing both Sabbath and
Sunday. Thus it was that Coptic Christianity inherited an
older (Eastern) "Hellenistic" practice which had received only
limited recognition in western Christianity, and it does not
seem to be the case that the Council of Nicea (or related 4thcentury councils) seriously modified the attitude of the Copts
in the 4th century on this issue.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE VULGATE ON

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF CERTAIN PSALMS
SAKAE KUBO
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan
The quotations of the OT in the book of Hebrews are taken

from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. This means
that at times there is some variation between the English
translation of an OT citation and that of the OT passage itself.
This is true in any secondary translation, for the translation
of a translation will differ, sometimes considerably, from the
original. However, there are three instances where an OT
passage and its citation have been translated in the same way
by the AV when clear differences would be expected in the
translation. Superficially these look like definite attempts at
harmonizing the OT passage with its citation in the NT;
however, a closer look reveals a different cause.
The first of these passages is Ps 104 : 4, which is quoted in
Heb I : 7. The AV reads, "Who maketh his angels spirits:
his ministers a flaming fire." Heb z : 7 reads the same except
that it has "flame of fire" instead of "flaming fire." The
latter is accounted for by the fact that the Hebrew has the
reading tn* wki, which the LXX has translated literally by
nup cpX6yov, while Heb i : 7 reads rcopOc cpX6yoc. But the
significant thing in this case is that AV has translated Ps 104 :
4 as "who maketh his angels spirits." The Hebrew and the
Greek for "angels" and "spirits" are both ambiguous. The
former (13,ptstrt = kyeAot) can mean any ordinary messengers
or angels, i.e., heavenly messengers. The latter (ninri
7EveUtutroc) can mean either "winds" or "spirits."
In Heb i : 7 the context is clearly speaking about "angels"
and not "messengers." The author is contrasting Christ and
VULGATE AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION
35
the angels in this chapter, so Scyyaouc can only mean "angels."

"Spirits" for nvel'illocroc is permissible, but again the context
clearly calls for "winds," which is the translation in RV, RSV,
and NEB. The word "winds" corresponds to "flame of fire"
in the parallelism. The translation "spirits" was probably
due to the influence of Heb i : 14 where the expression,
"ministering spirits," is found. Ps 104 : 4, on the other hand,
is clear in suggesting "messengers" and "winds" instead of
"angels" and "spirits" since the previous verse speaks about
the use that God makes of the forces of nature to accomplish
His ends. Even the AV of verse 3 has "who maketh the clouds
His chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind" (1311).
RV and RSV both have "winds" and "messengers."
Here is an interesting case where the Hebrew and the Greek
are virtually identical and yet a difference in translation was
called for because the NT writer used two words with entirely
different meanings from those intended by the OT writer.
The deviation is not due to the LXX translator but to the
NT writer. Identical translation of the passages was possible
only because of the ambiguity of meaning in the two words.
Does the fact that the agreement is with the NT passage
show that the translation of this passage influenced that of
the OT ? Did the AV translators follow a policy of harmonization ? So it appears on first sight. But that this is unlikely is
seen from other citations in the book of Hebrews which could
have been harmonized with equal ease, but were not.1 It is
also apparent from the slight differences preserved in these
verses under consideration. Besides, Ps 104 : 4 is translated
in this manner in all the previous "authorized" English
versions (Bishops' Bible, Great Bible, Matthew Bible, and
the Coverdale Bible).2 The question now must be, "Where
Heb i : 5 and 2 Sam 7 : 14; Heb r : 8, 9 and Ps 45 : 7; Heb l : loand Ps 102 : 26-28 and others.
2 When the revision of the Great Bible was planned by Archbishop
Parker, Guest, Bishop of Rochester, was sent the book of Psalms
to revise. In his response the Bishop wrote, "Where in the New
Testament one piece of a Psalm is reported, I translate it in the Psalms
12
36
SAKAE KUBO
did Coverdale get his translation ?" He did not know Hebrew
so he had to rely upon translations of the Hebrew. According
to Willoughby, Coverdale used as his main base for the
Psalms the Swiss-German Psalter from Zurich, modifying
and interpolating it with the Vulgate.3
The Zurich Psalter has wind and batten while the Vulgate
has sbiritus and angelos. Clearly, Coverdale followed the
Vulgate.4 The book of Psalms in the Vulgate is the Galilean
Psalter translated by Jerome from the fifth column (LXX) of
Origen's Hexapla.5 Coverdale's translation (and so also the
AV) is a tertiary translation, i.e., a translation of the Vulgate
which was a translation of the LXX which was a translation
of the Hebrew.
Our investigation settles down to the question, "Where did
Jerome get his translation ?" Was he harmonizing with the
NT passage or was he misled by the ambiguity of the words
according to the translation thereof in the New Testament, for the
avoiding of the offence that may rise to the people upon divers translations." Apparently, however, this alarmed the Archbishop so that
the book was sent to someone else to revise, for the initials at the end
of Psalms in the Bishops' Bible are T.B., which Dr. Aldis Wright
assigns to Thomas Bickley. Cf. Alfred W. Pollard, ed., Records of the
English Bible (London, 1911), pp. 31, 29o-1. This suggests that the
official position at least was opposed to such harmonizations.
3 Harold R. Willoughby, The Coverdale Psalter and the Quartrocentenary of the Printed English Bible (Chicago, 1935), p. 28. For the
OT Coverdale also used Tyndale, Luther, and Pagninus (cf. J. F.
Mozley, Coverdale and His Bibles [London, 1953], p. 79). Tyndale
did not translate Psalms, and Luther differs in his translation of this
passage, reading "winds" and "angels."
4 Coverdale followed the Vulgate in the numbering of the Psalms
since in this and the third instance they are numbered 103 and 94.
But the Zurich Bible also follows this numbering. In the Matthew
Bible and succeeding Bibles they are numbered 104 and 95.
5 B. M. Metzger, "Ancient Versions," The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible, IV, 753.
6 It is interesting to note that the Geneva Bible, which was revised
on the basis of the Hebrew text, reads, "Which maketh the spirits
his messengers." In the other two passages under consideration, the
Geneva Bible forsakes its predecessors more completely and follows
the Hebrew.
37
ciyyeAoug and rcveop.a.,rec which are more often translated

"angels" and "spirits" ? When Jerome later translated this
passage from the Hebrew itself, he translated it exactly the
same way.7 The ambiguity of the Hebrew text, the LXX
translation of it, and the use of it in the NT may have combined to give this result.
The second of these passages is Ps 8 : 5 which is quoted in
Heb 2 : 7. The AV reads, "For thou hast made him a little
lower than the angels." The point of consideration is the
translation of the word rrri'm. The translation "angels" goes
back again to Coverdale.8 Where did Coverdale get his
translation ? Again the Vulgate is the source. The Vulgate
has ab angelis while Zurich reads van Gott. The Vulgate is
clearly a translation of the LXX nap' &yy&Aouc.9 The question
here goes back beyond Jerome to the LXX translators, so the
influence of the NT can be entirely discounted. But it is
difficult to know exactly why the LXX translated thus. It
may be that the transcendental conception of God which
was prevalent at this time, with a corresponding increase in
angelic mediators, could not allow man and God to be compared with so little difference between them.
The AV translators, if they were not following their predecessors, could have translated wrI'm as "God," as RV and RSV
The New Latin Psalter, however, translated from the Hebrew
reads, "Nuntios tuos facis ventos, et ministros tuo ignem ardentem."
This Psalter was sponsored by Pope Pius XII and published in 1945
(cf. Augustine Bea, "The New Psalter: Its Origin and Spirit," CBQ,
VIII [1946], 4-35).
8 The AV translation follows exactly that of the Bishops' Bible and
the Great Bible. While the Matthew Bible and the Coverdale Bible
have "angels," their translation had an obviously messianic application with Heb 2 : 7 definitely in mind. They translated this passage
thus: "After thou haddest for a season made him lower then the angels,
thou crownedest him with honor and glory." Coverdale must have
been influenced by Luther in this direction: see Luther's translation
below.
9 Jerome, translating from the Hebrew, had a Deo. The New Latin
Psalter reads angelis. The Targum and Syriac also read "angels,"
while Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion read "God."
38
SAKAE KUBO
have done. The Geneva Bible, following the Hebrew rather

than the Vulgate, again corrected the former English versions
by translating it as "God."
Among recent commentators, only William R. Taylor and
W. Stewart McCullough in The Interpreter's Bible understand
it as "angels." 10 A. Cohen," Artur Weiser,12 H. C. Leupold,13
Hans Schmidt,14 A. F. Kirkpatrick,'5 and Elmer Leslie's
regard it as "God." Most of these do not even consider any
other possibility. They see the expression as an allusion to the
"image of Elohim" in Gen I : 27. The term 'elOhiin is nowhere
else translated as "angels" by AV.17
Luther's translation of this passage must have partly affected the translation of Coverdale and Matthew. He translated
Ps 8 : 5 thus : "Du wirst ihn lassen eine kleine Zeit von Gott
verlassen sein." The passage was considered as directly
messianic from its use in Hebrews so that to the difference
in degree is added the fact that this difference will be for only
a little while, a clear reference to the incarnation. Coverdale
and Matthew followed him in this detai1,18 but followed the
Vulgate in translating 'elahim as "angels."
The third instance where a difference in translation is
The Interpreter's Bible, IV (New York, 1955), 52.
n The Psalms, "The Soncino Books of the Bible" (Hindhead,
Surrey, 1945), p. 19.
12 The Psalms, "The Old Testament Library" (Philadelphia, 1962),
P. 144.
"Exposition of the Psalms (Columbus, 1959), p. 107.
14 Die Psalmen, "Handbuch zum alten Testament" (Tubingen,
1934), P. 13.
15 The Psalms, "The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges"
(Cambridge, 1939), p. 40.
16 The Psalms (New York, 1949), P 133.
17 Besides "God" and "gods," AV translates it as "judges" in
Ex 21 : 6; 22 : 8 (RV and RSV translate it "God" in both places).
18 RSV and NEB also translate the expression (3pcxxi) Tf. in Heb 2 : 7
as "a little while." The problem here centers around the question
whether the author of Hebrews considered this passage as directly
messianic or as an ideal representation of man's destiny which he
regarded as at present frustrated but to be realized through Jesus
Christ in the future.
10
39
expected but is not found is Ps 95 : 8, which is quoted in

Heb 3 : 8. AV translated it thus: "Harden not your heart,
as in the provocation : and as in the day of temptation, in the
wilderness." With very slight differences ("heart" is changed
to "hearts" and the second "as" is omitted) the same translation is found in Heb 3 : 8. The point at issue here is the
translation of nrip and ntrp. The AV by translating nrrp as
"provocation" and ntrp as "temptation" in Ps 95 : 8 considers
these words as common rather than proper nouns.
What is the reason for this, since wherever these two words
occur in the OT, AV has consistently translated them as
Meribah and Massah, proper place nouns, except here ?19
Again this translation goes back to Coverdale 20 and through
the Vulgate to the LXX. For the sections involved the Zurich
Bible is the same as the Vulgate, but for the verse in its
entirety Coverdale is closer to the Vulgate. RV and RSV
translate, "as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the
wilderness." The dependence upon a secondary translation
is apparent. The Vulgate consistently translates rir? as
tem/tatio, as it does also in Ps 95 : 8. However, while it
translates rirrp as contradictio in every other passage, it
translates it in Ps 95 : 8 as inritatio. The reason for this seems
to be that the LXX translated rirrp here as Tcapoortxpacy.65
instead of &v-raoyi.oc, which is the usual translation except
for Ex 17 : 7, where it is Xot86m:rt.4.21 The Vulgate, following
the LXX, translated it inritatio 22 instead of going back to the
Hebrew nrrp; Coverdale, following the Vulgate, translated
19 EX 17 : 7; Num 20 : 13, 24; 27 : 14; Deut 6 : 16; 9 : 22; 32 : 51;
33 : 8; Ps 81 : 7.
20 The Bishops' Bible and the Great Bible are identical with AV,
but Coverdale and Matthew read, "as when ye provoked in tyme of

temptacion in the wildernes."
21 The Vulgate omits nr-rp in Ex 17 : 7.
22 Jerome goes back to contradictio when he translates from the
Hebrew. The New Latin Psalter reads "ut in Meriba, ut die Massa
in deserto."
40
SAKAE KUBO
it as a verb, "provoke," and later in the Great Bible as

"provocation," 23 which the Bishops' Bible followed. This
translation influenced the translation of ntAz. as "temptation"
instead of "Massah," as it is transliterated elsewhere.
The translation of Heb 3 : 8, i5 is also called into question.
Should not 7C(Xpocmxpocap.66 here read "Meribah" and 7capaccrii.6q,
"Massah," instead of "provocation" and "temptation" ? The
problem is somewhat complicated in that the understanding
of the author concerning these words must be taken into
account. Verses 9 and 16, the former referring to "temptation"
and the latter to "provocation," would lose their effect if the
translations were not used. Meribah and Massah would not be
as appropriate. Moffatt may have chosen the best way to deal
with the problem when he capitalized "Provocation" and
"Temptation," following the LXX pattern of translating
proper nouns. In this way, the effect of verses g and i6
would be kept and the words still maintained as proper nouns.
The harmonization in translations of these passages with
their corresponding NT passages is not due to a conscious,
deliberate policy. Rather, it is due to the influence of the
Vulgate which in turn was influenced by the LXX. The
Vulgate Psalter, as we have mentioned, is a translation of the
LXX, from which the book of Hebrews quotes. Therefore,
it can easily be seen how these passages could be translated
similarly. This explains the similarity since these passages
are all from the book of Psalms. Instead of direct harmonization, we have indirect harmonization, i.e., the passages are not
harmonized by comparing directly the English translation
of the OT passages with that of the NT, but somewhat unconsciously by translating two passages whose basis is the
LXX text.
There are OT passages in modern translations which are
23 The Geneva Bible alone had "Meribah" and "Massah." It is
to the credit of its translators that in the three cases discussed here
they went back to the Hebrew text for their translation instead of to
the Vulgate.
41
dependent on the versions instead of the Hebrew text. These

are passages where the Hebrew is either obscure or where the
versions seem to give a better reading. This study indicates,
however, that the AV has some passages where it is dependent
upon the Vulgate and indirectly on the LXX where such is
not the case. The Hebrew is certainly superior in these three
cases cited. The Bishops' Bible and the AV were purportedly
brought into harmony with the Hebrew text, and though the
latter version had outstanding Semitic scholars on its committees, some of these tertiary translations slipped through.
Even the better readings of the Geneva Bible which they
had at their disposal did not direct them to the right renderings. At this stage the translation of the NT passages may have
had some influence in preserving these readings.
LES 126o JOURS PROPHETIQUES DANS LES CERCLES

JOACHIMITES
ALFRED-FELIX VAUCHER
Seminaire Adventiste du Saleve, Collonges-sous-Saleve (Haute-Savoie),
France
Parmi les periodes prophetiques, it en est une qui revient

frequemment dans les deux apocalypses canoniques, tantot
sous la forme de trois temps (ans) et demi,1 tantot sous celle
de quarante-deux mois,2 tantot sous celle de mille-deux-centsoixante-jours.3
Un theologien genevois a fait intervenir quatre ordres
d'arguments pour justifier ici l'interpretation symbolique:
Premier argument, c'est qu'evidemment ces jours doivent etre
symboliques, puisqu'ils designent quelque chose de tres long;
deuxieme argument, c'est que l'Ecriture nous declare souvent
ailleurs que, dans son langage prophetique, les jours sont des ans;
troisieme argument, c'est que des accomplissements de l'histoire
ont dj frequemment confirme cette regle prophetique et nous
ont montre que les jours sont des ans; quatrieme argument, c'est
qu'on peut dire en realite, et non seulement en symbole, que les
ans sont des jours. Ce langage est exactement vrai dans l'astronomie.4
Un astronome vaudois a fait d'interessantes recherches

sur les chiffres de Daniel en rapport avec l'astronomie. Voici
ce qu'a ecrit a ce sujet un astronome francais:
De CHESEAUX avait decouvert le cycle de 315 ans, apres lequel le
Soleil et la Lune reviennent, a sept ou huit minutes d'arc pres, au
meme point du ciel d'oU ils etaient partis. Or, ce nombre 315 est
precisement le quart de 1260, nombre de Daniel. De CHESEAUX en
conclut que la periode de 1260 ans devait etre, elle aussi, un cycle
1 Dan
7 : 25; 12 : 7; Apoc 12 : 14.

Apoc 11 : 2 ; 13 : 5.
3 Apoc 11 : 3; 12 : 6.
4 Louis Gaussen (1790-1863), Daniel le prophite, III (Paris, 1849),
343
2
LES 1260 JOURS PROPIITIQUES
43
luni-solaire.--En effet, apres 126o annees juliennes, le Soleil et

la Lune reviennent a un demi degre pres au meme point de l'ecliptique.5
Il fut un temps oil la plupart des exegetes israelites et protestants, et meme quelques catholiques, s'accordaient pour
donner au jour prophetique la valeur d'une armee solaire. Un
savant reforme du XVIIIe sicle pouvait dire: "Tout le
monde sait qu'un jour est un an dans le style prophetique." 6
Un rabbin anglais a fait imprimer a Londres, en l'annee
5554 du calendrier juif, un traite dont la seconde partie a pour
titre Une Explication des Temps.' Saadia ben Joseph (892-942),
Salomon bar Isaac (1040-1105), Levi ben Gershon (1288-1344)
et Isaac ben Juda Abravanel (1437-1508) sont mentionnes
comme ayant reconnu le caractere symbolique des trois temps
et demi de Daniel VII.
Un theologien anglican, l'un des meilleurs interpretes de
l'Apocalypse, a montre que bien avant l'epoque de l'abbe
Joachim, ce mode d'interpretation a ete connu:
5 Theophile Moreux (1867-1954), La science mysterieuse des Pharaons
(Paris, 1923), pp. 176, 177. Les Remarques historiques, chronologiques
et astronomiques sur quelques endroits du livre de Daniel, par JeanPhilippe Loys de Cheseaux (1718-1751), inserees en tete des Memoires
posthumes sur divers sujets d'astronomie et de mathematique (Lausanne,
1754), ont ete publiees a part, 1777.
6 Antoine Court de Gebelin (1725-1784), Le Monde primitif (Paris,
1781), p. 90. Plus recemment, le medecin irlandais William Whitla
(1851-1933), Sir Isaac Newton's Daniel and the Apocalypse (London,
1922), p. 108, croyait encore pouvoir affirmer: "By common consent
all Biblical scholars agree that, in symbolic prophecy, the day is to
be accepted as a year of 36o days." En realite, les commentateurs
modernes de tendance critique preferent l'interpretation litterale
pronee par la plupart des auteurs catholiques.
7 Eliakim ben Abraham, Binah la-Ittim. Un exemplaire de ce traite
se trouve a la Trinity College Library de Dublin, sous le titre Intellige
tempora: de prophetia Danielis tractatus (Heb.), avec la date au catalogue 1795. Dans The Jewish Encyclopedia, V, 109, Isaac Broyde
indique la date: London, 1799. Cet ouvrage a ete signale par William
Cuninghame (1776-1849), A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets
of the Apocalypse (4th ed., London, 1843), pp. 509, 510, et par George
Stanley Faber (1773-1854), The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, I (2d
ed., London, 1844), 49.
44
From Cyprian's time, near the middle of the third century, even
to the time of Joachim and the Waldensians in the twelfth century,
there was kept up by a succession of expositors in the Church a recognition of the precise year-day principle of interpretation, and
its application made, not without consideration and argument, to
one and another of the chronological prophetic periods of days,
including the shorter of those that were involved in the prophecies
respecting Antichrist; though not, so far, to that of the 1260 predicted days of Antichrist's duration.8
Chez les chretiens, c'est l'abbe Joachim de Flore qui le

premier a donne aux 126o jours la valeur de 126o annees.9
L'abbe Joachim entretenait des relations avec des Juifs.
On peut donc supposer que c'est a eux qu'il a emprunte l'idee
d'appliquer aux 126o fours prophetiques la regle d'interpretalions que d'autres avant lui avaient djadoptee pour des
periodes plus courtes."
On croit generalement que Joachim a compte les 126o ans
de l'an i a l'an 126o de l'ere chretienne.11 Il semble plutot
8 Edward Bishop Elliott (1793-1875), Horae Apocalypticae, or a
Comm. on the Apocalypse critical and historical, III (5th ed., London,
1862), 283.
9 Dans son Expositio super Apocalypsin (Venise, 1527) p. 131,
Joachim etablit le principe: parfois, dans l'Ecriture, un jour sert
designer une annee. Ce principe, it l'applique aux 126o fours: "Muller
amicta sole, quae designat Ecclesiam, mansit abscondita in solitudine
a facie serpentis, accepto haud dubium die pro anno et mille ducentis
sexaginta diebus pro totidem annis" (Concordia Veteris et Novi Testamenti, [Venise, 1519], lib. II, tract. I, cap. 16, fol. 12). Voir aussi lib. V,
cap. 118, ff. 134, 135. Joachim attachait une grande importance au
chiffre 1260. "C'est sur ce chiffre que l'abbe Joachim a fonde toutes
ses revelations," disait en 1305 un de ses disciples, Ubertino da Casale,
Arbor Vitae Crucifixae Jesu, trad. ital. par Fausta Casolini (Lanciano,
1937), P 177.
18 Sur les rapports de Joachim avec des Juifs on peut consulter le
moderniste italien Ernesto Buonaiuti (1881-1946), Gioacchino da Fiore
(Roma, 1931), pp. 114-119, et George La Piana (1879-), dans la revue
Speculum, VII (1932), 257-282.
Ainsi le methodiste anglais Henry Bett (1876-), Joachim of Flora
(London, 1931), p. 41: "By 126o the seventh and last age of the Spirit
will begin." Le prof. Antonio Crocco, Gioacchino da Fiore (Napoli,
1960), p. 157, affirme que d'apres les calculs concordistes de Joachim
126o devait marquer l'aube de la renaissance spirituelle de l'humanite.
"Il distinguait dans l'histoire de l'humanite trois grandes periodes
LES 1260 JOURS PROPHETIQUES
45
qu'il a fait aboutir cette periode a l'an 1200. Un prelat italien

affirmait que "dans ses ecrits l'abbe Joachim n'avait rien
predit de particulier pour l'annee 1260." 12 Un historien
catholique exclut absolument l'annee 126o comme terme des
126o ans: "C'est un fait qu'en aucun endroit de ses oeuvres
authentiques Joachim n'a predit l'annee 126o comme date
de la seconde venue de Jesus pour le jugement final." 13
Ailleurs le meme auteur donne les details suivants :
Dans son dernier ouvrage Joachim nous a laisse un calcul precis
du nombre des generations du second &tat, les repartissant en trois
groupes: it fait partir le premier groupe de Zacharie, pere de JeanBaptiste; avec les quarante-deux generations de trente annees
chacune it arrive a l'an 12oo, apres lequel it attend la palingenesie
spirituelle (voir Super IV Evang., ed. Bu0NAIUTI, pp. 73 ss.), et
it espere contribuer personnellement a aplanir la voie en vue du
nouveau miracle (voir Concorde, a la fin). Donc les 1260 annees
(tres status mundi) dont chacune etait l'image de la suivante: l'ere du
Pere qui await dure jusqu'a la venue de Jean-Baptiste, l'ere du Fils
inauguree par l'arrivee de Jesus-Christ et qui devait durer, d'apres
les calculs fondes sur cette exegese, jusque vers le milieu du XIIIe
sicle, oil devait enf in commencer la troisieme ere, plus parfaite que les
autres, celle du Saint-Esprit. La duree de ces tires lui paraissait dorm&
par le nombre de quarante-deux generations enumerees dans la genealogie du commencement de l'evangile de s. Matthieu. Il admettait
pour chacune une duree approximative de trente ans, ce qui conduisait
a l'an 1260. Toutefois, it parait qu'il supposait une transition plus ou
moms lente entre la periode du Fils et celle du Saint-Esprit. Mais les
signes precurseurs de l'approche du terme etaient dj manifestes."
August Eduard Cunitz (1812-1886), art. "Joachim de Flore," Encyclopedie des Sciences Religieuses, VII (188o), 413, 414.
12 Leone Tondelli (1883-1953), Da Gioacchino a Dante (Torino, 1944),
p. 20. Voir aussi p. 12: "Joachim voyait dj a l'an 1200 l'aube de
l'ere nouvelle."
13 Francesco Foberti (1866-1945), dans la revue Sophia, XIX (1940),
536. Cet auteur estimait (p. 537) que les passages de Joachim on
figure l'annee 1260 doivent etre consideres comme interpoles. C'est
egalement a Vann& 1200 qu'Alois Dempf, Sacrum Imperium (Munchen,
1929), p. 274, situe la fin du second etat et le commencement du
troisieme. En effet, dans Concordia, IV, col. 3o ft. 54, 55, Joachim
declare que dans l'Eglise la quarante-unieme generation commence
en l'an 1201 depuis l'incarnation du Christ. Le prof. Raoul Manselli
cite ce passage dans La Lectura super Apocalypsin di Pietro di Giovanni
Olivi (Roma, 1955), p. 95, et it ajoute en note que la date fatidique de
126o ne ressort pas precisement des oeuvres authentiques de Joachim.
46
du second &tat, dans son calcul exempt de lacunes, aboutissent a

1 200 ; c'est une deformation evidente du joachimisme ancien de
placer la fin du Nouveau Testament en 1260, comme le font certaines
tables du Livre des Figures. 14
Il convient de reconnaitre, toutefois, que les passages de

Joachim relatifs au calcul des 126o ans ne sont pas tres clairs.
On attend encore une edition critique des grands ouvrages
de cet abbe.15 On peut aussi se demander si cet auteur n'a pas
varie quelque peu dans ses estimations.
Dans un article non sign& consacre a Joachim, la question a
ete posee, a propos de l'ere nouvelle annoncee par l'abbe de
Flore, qui se considerait comme un simple exegete, mais que
ses disciples ont &eve au rang de prophete : "Quand commencera cette ere ?" L'auteur declare:
La reponse de Joachim sur ce point n'est pas coherente et n'insiste pas sur des donnees chronologiques constantes; parfois l'ere
nouvelle semble imminente ou dj commencee, tandis que parfois
le commencement est place apres un espace de temps indetermine.
Les dates oscillent entre les annees 1200 et 1260."
14 Foberti, Gioacchino da Fiore e it Gioacchinismo antico e moderno

(Padova, 1942), p. 241. Le meme auteur (pp. 24, 25) pense que l'annee
126o entre dans les previsions de Joachim a travers un calcul elastique
qui exige d'tre clarifie dans les editions critiques attendues des oeuvres
authentiques, en tenant compte du fait que Salimbene exclut la fixation de cette date par Joachim; it voit une interpolation joachimite
dans le passage de la Concordia qui indique Vann& 1260. Il est vrai
que quelques tableaux du Liber Figurarum annoncent le retour du
Christ pour l'annee 1260. Mais Foberti, pp. 225-263, est d'avis qu'a
part un petit nombre de tableaux authentiques cet ouvrage est l'oeuvre
de la fausse litterature joachimite. Quanta Tondelli, qui a soutenu
l'authenticite dans la Iere ed. du Liber Figurarum, I (Torino, 1940),
16-24, est oblige d'admettre dans la 2 e ed. (1953), pp. 19-27, que
ces tableaux ont subi des remaniements.
14 Les trois grands ouvrages de Joachim dont on attend une edition
critique sont l'explication de l'Apocalypse, dont on ne possede qu'une
ed. de Venise, 1527, avec le Psalterium decem-chordarum, imprime a la
suite, ff. 225-280, et la Concorde, publiee au meme endroit en 1519.
Ernesto Buonaiuti a donne une edition critique de Tractatus super
quattuor Evangelia (Roma, 1930), et de De articulis fidei (1937).
Arsenio Frugoni a publie Adversus ludeos (Roma, 1957).
16 Enciclopedia Ecclesiastica, III (Milano, 1949), 612.
LES JOURS 1260 PROPHETIQUES
47
Joachim hesitait a preciser une date que Jesus lui-meme

s'etait refuse a fixer.17
A noter aussi cet aveu de Mgr Tondelli:
Ces calculs de l'abbe etaient formulos d'une maniere assez elastique, ce qui permettait aux interpretes de les etendre a diverses dates.
Joachim voyait dj en 'zoo l'aube de l'ere nouvelle; les deux
generations suivantes, de longueur non mesuree, devaient signifier
l'ere de l'Esprit."
En 1254 parut a Paris le Liber introductorius in Evangelium

Aeternum, attribue a Gherardo da Borgo San Donnino, et
qui fut supprime par ordre du pape. L'annee 1260 devait
marquer la fin du Nouveau Testament.19
En 1260 le franciscain Gherardo Segalelli, ou Segarelli,
fondait, avec la benediction de l'eveque de Parma, l'ordre des
Apostoliques, qui allait degenerer en une secte heretique avec
son nouveau chef Fra Dolcino.29
L'annee 126o n'ayant pas apporte ce que l'on attendait,
"une profonde crise se produisit dans le camp joachimite en
raison de la deception causee par cette vaine attente." 21
Parmi ceux qui, decourages, renoncerent aux espoirs
entretenus depuis 1200, it faut nommer le franciscain Salimbene degli Adami de Parma (1221-1287), auteur d'une Chronique composee au cours des dernieres annees de sa vie.22
Joachim est mort en 1202, sans avoir vu le renouvellement
Mt 24 : 36; Acts 1 : 7. Passages cites souvent par Joachim.
Tondelli, Il Libro delle Figure, I (2a ediz., Torino, 1953), 195.
Sur le troisierne age, voir Antonio Crocco, L'eta dello Spirito Santo in
Gioacchino da Fiore (Brescia, 1954)
19 "Quod novum Testamentum non durabit in virtute sua nisi per
sex annos proxime futuros, scilicet, usque ad annum 1260." Dans
Collectio Judiciorum de nods erroribus de Charles Du Plessis d'Argentre (1673-174o), I (Nouv. ed., Paris, 1755), p. 164, col. 2.
20 Sur Segalelli, mort en 1300, et sur Dolcino, brfile en 1307, voir
Felice Tocco (1845-1911), dans A rchivio storico italiano, XIX (1897),
241-275.
21 Tondelli, Il Libro delle Figure, I (2a ediz.), 16.
22 Chronica, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, dans Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Scriptorum, XXXII (19o5-1913), 302: "Annus millesimus
ducentesimus sexagesimus est elapsus : dimisi totaliter istam doctrinam
et dispono non credere nisi que videro."
17
18
48
attendu. Ses disciples ont continue d'etablir des calculs, en

deplacant les dates. Dans les commentaires apocryphes sur
Esaie et Jeremie, composes entre 124o et 126o, c'etait encore
sur Vann& 1260 que se fixaient les espoirs. Apres cette date,
les joachimites compterent les 126o annees a partir de l'an
34, date presumee de l'ascension du Christ, puis de 96, date
supposee de la composition du livre de 1'Apocalypse de Jean.
Ces renseignements nous sont fournis par le dominicain Jean
de Paris, dit Quidort, mort en 1306.23
Peu a peu on en vint a negliger la periode des 126o jours
prophetiques pour s'attacher a d'autres periodes, plus longues,
celles des 1290 et des 1335 jours de Daniel XII, enfin a celle
des 2300 soirs et matins de Daniel VIII, ce qui permettait de
placer les Brands evenements eschatologiques dans un proche
avenir.
23 Dans son traite De Anticristo, ecrit en 1300, imprime a Venise
en 1525. Voir fol. XLVIII. Jean de Paris s'en est tenu au sens littera'.
MARGUERITE D'ANGOULEME
AND THE FRENCH LUTHERANS
A STUDY IN PRE-CALVIN REFORMATION IN FRANCE: II *
DANIEL WALTHER
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan
Before John Calvin came on the scene of action, there

existed a French movement of Evangelicals whose efforts
coincided with the developments in Wittenberg. Before
Luther's attack on Indulgences, a Paris professor, Lefevre
d'Etaples, wrote a commentary on Romans and inspired a
"Fabrisian" movement which found a concrete manifestation
in the Cenacle at Meaux, where Bishop G. Briconnet attempted a reform of the clergy. Luther's writings began to
be known and read in France shortly after they appeared in
Germany. Marguerite of Alencon (later of Navarre), sister
of Francis I, encouraged every intellectual and spiritual movement. She wrote hymns, tracts and plays which have a
Lutheran accentyet she was not a Lutheran in the confessional sense.
Because of the attitude of Parliament, Luther's writings
went underground in France. So did the presses and the colporteurs. Crespin gave an account of the often forgotten men
who brought Lutheran books into France. Among these colporteurs were humble artisans as well as noblemen, often
paying with their lives for their dedication. Mace Moreau
was burned at the stake, as were Jean Joery, Nicolas Nail,
and Denis LeVain'
* The first part of this article was published in AUSS, II (1964),
137-155. Research for both parts of this study was made possible
with the support of the American Philosophical Society.
Jean Crespin, Le Livre des Martyrs (Geneve, 1554), I, 302; Daniel
Lortsch, Histoire de la Bible en France (Geneve, 191o), pp. 19-28.
4
50
DANIEL WALTHER
Francois Lambert
One of the early French insurgents was Francois Lambert
j
of Avignon (14861530) /ne ( of the )few Frenchmen who went
be-Con-lel raT Fren'ch Reformer.
I aim I w47s
to Wittenbelg.
Fipt he/translated Fnnber,of itraqs,,sucli as the: petbnAlein,
whose rendering was attributed to Louis de Berquin. In
Wittenberg he was j6inVa, '15 "ii .byt'an obscure individual,
Claudius a,Ta.uro,_and,tbe r.yyell-Igiowii,noblemari Anemond
de Coct. Lambert admired the University of Wittenberg,
4!itbe first-tin. the ,world,where,erudition-,overflows";,he,anet
f [Commentary on-ithe
Luther,-,,,who prefaced! his
to ,,the, Elector,
.8tAleilof .thel TEITIAciscqn
Lambert reported oni conditions[in"France,: )"Souls, are stirred
ini-,.almost fall; France,' and,rwitliputua teacher, truth!.,lias
gained . sincere, Ifriends. 30 Giving,rhis reason (for ' leaving , the
country;,;;AeFindica.ted.,,thatillisi fellow, i monks, .molested: !him ,and iliclifrom him "those truly-evangelical books of Lutber.y
and to
He,.carne,T to / WittenbergItof Aranslate ;more nf
4,
diligent
Bible
conun.entatoriibecause,'
"while
lthe
heqpine )
Word; .abounds; in !Germany; the,'Frensli -people are, deprived
Lam.bertf eNplained how lw:left the ,Franciscan order
of
and:,shed the lipliprisaic4.11,mbe ';',: `,11\Tever would rI 'have deft
them (the Observantines) if I had been permitted to preserve
,the r frgedonk i of eyangeligal itruth;.;f1But he i gave a,rather
puzzling,rea.sou,fpr .,corning, :to Wittenberg'. 1149, Ipreach,;rthe
to
Scriptures to! the, isehol ars inl IW,ittenberg.:4,1Luther
)1(1
!Di H
-),)ni,-C,1 rrlfFl %;i{(0 4
3 I A.-L. ,Hefrainjard, Correspondence des Rdformateurs -dansles.Pays
{iii
t,ti
cle.41,ngue,f,rci
,ncaiff
3 "Gallia piene omnis commota est, et absque magistro sincerOs habit
' 1(1
'"''
.-6i;itatid;ditictorei,-Pi(ibid.t,J;1,1 Y.1
4 "Veni igitur Wiltembergam, ut Verbum sanctum liberer administrem, saltem inter doctos. Aliquid nostri Martini consilio exordiar,
riyel iPsalmos;.)Yel Lucam,- -ve1.,aliquid tale.
vel OsePn
auxilium dari/'
jnbeas
Sed
grist-um obsecro,
ibid.; also "Mais f teste Seigneur,,que,jamais je ne les eussequitte.s,
si ;en restant au milieu d'eux,, tj:avaist.pu conserver, la liberte de,la',verite
,1 t", !
pp.A13,
"
\,11
evangeliqw
THE TRENCH LUTHERANS
51
be overly impressalTc.E614rdtvsitliat'.:fli& Frenchman would

not last long,in .Wittenberg because he. would soon find his
111
(.9:111., 47 1TI 01111 TIT 111011.Y/ .1111,01111J( t
equal. Later on uther asked Spalatin to arange for Lambert,
'.6;i1
TO 91E1-TN 9101 .10
i.1;1;(1?9
who was poor ip worldly goods, ,to leave
," Wittenberg so that
01T) .010f OS
!A:s)
ftl J?:0111
he could ,go to Zurich. where.,the,
pro dimity of, France would
r.)1101ii. ifill0h131 IF111. 9 0
011
91
offer hirn ,a .greater opporturiit,y.5
:;:N.D.,0-.1-111 911 `V;)1,.+II n1PA
ffj .11:0'et9ci
Lambert s Somme Chrestienne, -pnnted in Marburg 152Q
)10(111111k
11:)0911
:,171;111
111.10 Ifif0;IY;
for Charles V, when he was at the Diet of Augsburg, is one
..101V).,..0p.0 10
of the rare French tracts ,published in G,ermany. This rench
/19'..O:',9 W.0111 21iV/190e,o,t, 9nn
W9IV
911[31 .1,!,/11311.2
Lutheran, who .deeri.7,ed- this title as much. as any other
in9irpou) Jill 111 ,9101W olir /PAO'''. 91)
.0X11ri 111,1-,371.9OTT
renchman (in Strasbourg ,he was referred to ,as Dr. Wel9.f.o 10 ett.t;;,...rrtEci
.- 11:)
Dnotimir.
714-1.101
sche ), was not. quite. pleased,With th.e emphasis _placed
n.laced on
f if
01f1
19.11 0103 Of 1)97-19V:i.3 911 .0001 Hi>
the, person of Luther,. he wrote to Charles V "Sir, it is truly
0.0W Jr ad
91110:1.11P, ,rtin5crj
11:0191, `,
wrong to call some of us Lutherans, ,because we do not follow
riErflYITM 11E_, De1111,1) VITT 010// Offr, .1.9CFA)M 0111 /IQ '1 0.100
Luther but . Jesus Christ. .f ,Flowever we admrt. that God
10 1100 .6 V-;1I1;1 0111
has at n,o-time used anyone like himto.reveal tiis holy truth. ,6
P1-41 91015011 11:)0.111 .101171. 011.);.7) JE.(1-1 LIR-L .901101.1gE.V. 1A).1
Germany,Lambert was
, not only under. Luther s influencp
i-'7)119111;DI11) .)1,-.1 01 .0e1150_ )o
1101110-V II,G1?;7.1i-1. 911
but.also ,under that ,,of Carlstadt, whose ideas are, noticeable
011 ,j J r),11
111I0q00
"919115 IL1C1. .O11110070C. 91i) 10
in Lambert:s ,concepts on prophetism.
`)1111;IffilL 111.:;11I 1111V-1/379 "Jea)10 el 01171 sorm-fi ni `1:,B1)01 9110
10.1.41.:1" 91-i11 1173111 -..1.rtti-Rfart.s-t1 -loci 8 "fro?no11:1) (:)1i79trgist14)
In
to Spal,atin,,,januay...,
r25 1523.: Erzoircl
lang I hie)
..) Lutherf
ju p
1,
11
..
1)
blesben,' acht ich
denn er sezns G ezchen oiler ivierster wohl finden
fiifirid;'''-f it/ et?? f) .2f
rAqiet.1
.
49 '1523 :
liGratiaJet paxoi,amb.brim's Franeiscus s,,tavit e/p.ostris` terkisiclfg6edere
istic -meliusr_alitFrns
et. rinajora facturus .913 .vicinitatem
1:Turegum,
iWt.t4
u.
..ATe.08
Galhae, qui apud nos esse copiam sentit doantium," ibid.,_pp.
to O n t Try.-)8 to 1.flitcp3D
,'8111.(*( Lib ar111`)Ila ./?, IS
14 ,
, if stfxtaincots La;tirgieirt,43$oniynegelzi6tiokim a 94.1r6victpriAuxorrifieyei4r
(Marburg
-1529y, ,NAT: G.Noore La
-Charles,de,ce
flu" nom le Cinquiesme
4 011.1
"
.1-41)..1_13,.friisi
l'aforrn Allemande et4 Litterat4re Francazse (Stràgbourg,
193o), pp.
Wi(ii814?
Lutheri ft A nriemundi
(Tubingen[?] 1523 [?]) ; 'Commentarii inQuatuorultimosProphetias, 1526;
De t5aCrO(ConiYigiO
itie
i(Eollaciiit?:1;1t536) DiYregitlanir:MinaitaiuMi el freoittrd itinizjers as .5p erditidfiiSIEkeettisP "Fr a-ncigeil
eitip:11 1 ,Comoelecihib
h;,e fevangeliei
.
deAl,totplip..tiott-
. tlAve.aluti'e pteface., de iVIartinILiithe"t,

et une
autre d'Annemittaistoctits2Arg4rfforati,
On'Lambert
, .
geo,,IJI.ENVVIBautn,tEtetni, L&Mberrybn :11%ifigjzon:

F 1W.fillla,genea1iivpFjâneiScils
'4)644...-r1AVignrdn' :(Elberfercl;
.q
",
1860); ZKG, XXII (1901), 129-144.
52
DANIEL WALTHER
Other French Lutherans

Guillaume Dumolin, whom we find in Wittenberg in 1525,
is known especially by the preface of Tres utile Traicte du
vray refine de Antechrist. It is most interesting to find that
Dumolin was the author of the first rational French statement
on Luther as a person. In his Notable et utile traicte he attacks
the Marian cult, a mark of a French Lutheran, a "shibboleth
of distinction." 7
Many shared Farel's view that "the gospel was most eagerly
received in France." Pierre de Sebiville wrote, in an eloquent
letter to Anemond de Coct, that the partisans of the gospel
in France had almost all cooled off. He referred to another
French Lutheran, Antoine Papillon, who was considered an
authority on the gospel and who performed an important
task: the translation of Luther's De V otis monasticis purposely
for Marguerite. But that caused him much trouble "with
the Parisian vermin"referring, of course, to the chicaneries
of the Sorbonne. But there was a hopeful sign: "There is no
one today in France who is more evangelical than Madame
(Marguerite) d'Alencon." 8 For translating that little tract
on monastic vows, Papillon was well rewarded by Marguerite.
Sebiville also mentioned that Marguerite was accompanied
by Michel d'Arande, who preached in her court "but the
purest gospel." Marguerite also arranged for Michel to preach
at St. Etienne du Bourg, the capital of Berry, one of Marguerite's domains. The archbishop dared Michel to preach,
threatening life imprisonment and excommunication. Marguerite wrote that there would be no change ; her chaplain
would preach, and thus the archbishop's interdiction was
7 Henri Hauser, Etudes suv la Reforme francaise (Paris, 1909), p. 41,
n. 2, suggests that the one trait which marked the French Lutheran
was his attitude toward the Virgin; there was an anti-marian movement in France; Jerome de Hangest, Adversus Antimarianos propugnaculum (Paris, 1529); Moore, op. cit., p. 75.
8 Anemond de Coct to Farel, December 17, 1524, Herminjard, op.
cit., p. 309; "Il a translate le traicte de votis monasticis," December z8,
1524; ibid., p. 314.
THE FRENCH LUTHERANS
53
not in order because, she wrote, "nothing is involved here

except the honor of God." What about the threat of excommunication on those who would listen ? "No one," she wrote,
"needs to be afraid to hear the word of God." 9
Luther repeatedly expressed his concern about the slowness of the progress of the gospel in France. He wrote to the
Duke of Savoy, Charles III, whom he urged to use his high
position in favor of the evangelical cause. The Reformer
advised the Duke to see that the gospel should not be a mere
spark but become a flame : "Fan that divine fire that burns
in you so that the House of Savoy may be consumed as well
as all of France."10
If the cenacle of Meaux could not convert France, would
it be done by the Lutheran Louis de Berquin, as the Histoire
ecclesiastique indicated as possible ? An admirer of Erasmus
and Luther, Berquin translated some of Luther's writings,
as well as those of Melanchthon and Hutten, without espousing all their ideas, but he succeeded in exposing again the
ignorance of the clergy.11 Suspected already in 1523 but
protected by Marguerite, he was imprisoned in 1525 in the
Conciergerie "because," said the contemporary Bourgeois, "he
was a Lutheran and was punished for holding Luther's
doctrine." 12 From his Madrid prison the King of France halted
the proceedings. The following year, when Berquin was again
apprehended, Marguerite intervened and asked Montmorency
to set him free, "for I esteem it as if it were done for me." 13
9 "Que .nul ne craigne de ouir la parole de Dieu," BSHPF, LII
(1903), 308-311; ibid., LXX (1921), 170.
10 Luther to the duke of Savoy: "... et ardeat sanctum illud
incendium Christi, immo flagret, ut vere tandem Francia possit
dici ab Evangelio regnum Christianissimum quod hactenus ab impio
Antichristum, propter effusionem sanguinem, officio, impie dictum
est christianissimum! ..." September 7, 1523; Herminjard, op. cit.,
pp. 151-153.
11 Charles d'Argentre, De nov. error., I, i, XII, XIII; BSHPF,
XXXVII (1889), 501.
12 Journal d'un Bourgeois de Paris, p. 278; BSHPF, XXX (1882),
113.
19 Marguerite, Lettres, op. cit., I, 219.
54
DANIEL WALTHER
Erasmus pleaded with Berquin, whom he called "Mi Berquine eruditissime," and Erasmus wrote to Marguerite soliciting her help. There are two letters from Erasmus to Marguerite, but none from her. Marguerite never followed Erasmus, whose wisdom was too rational for her taste and whose
devotion was devoid of tenderness. To Marguerite, love was
greater than reason. Erasmus liked clarity too much to suit
either Marguerite or Lefevre. That she was not easily impressed by Erasmus is witnessed by LeSueur's letter to Farel : "You
see in her such a sincere and wise spirit that she will not easily
be seduced by the artifice of the fox of whom you speak
because she never has approved of his writings."14
Marguerite was at ease in the realm of the spirit and poured
out her heart in sweet hymns like "A la clere fontenelle"
and especially that magnificent hymn used thereafter, "Reveilles-toi Seigneur Dieu,"15 which was translated somewhat
freely into English:
"Awake, 0 Lord God, ...
You want your Gospel to be preached
In hamlet and town, in castle and hut.
Give to your servants a heart
That is strong and firm,
And that with fervor and love
They love thee unto death
. . . that joyful death .. ." (and that was for Berquin).
14 For Erasmus' two letters see Percy Stafford Allen, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami (Oxford, 1906-47), VI, No. 1615 and
VII, No. 1854; A. Renaudet, Etudes erasmiennes, (Paris, 1929), p.
65; Herminjard, op. cit., p. 218.
15 Resveilles-toy, Seigneur Dieu, Donne donc a tes servants
Coeur ferme et fort
Fais ton effort
Et que d'amour tous fervents
De venger en chacun lieu
Ayment la mort..
Des tiens la mort.
Avance donc, Seigneur,

Tu veux que ton Evangile
Ton doux support
Soit preche par les tiens
En chasteau bourgade et ville Leur donnant pour tout honneur
Joyeuse mort.
Sans que l'on en cele riens :
Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses, I (Paris, 1873), 505-508;
BSHPF, XLVI (1898), 70-71.
THE %F-kENCH'iLWTHERANS
55
tiBerqiiin was t jailed a [third ( tithe .11`My.LILtird);??)11V11arigu,difitw

Ofetro the KingP"p0oraerigliiii,iwlid through*oilr'kiildries
Was t'S'aved/ ..tWicel goeS no*; havingl Qioile l'Ouwhoin.91.6',Iery
his,linnocence.EY tIh spite.,'ot Margtrei-itOsi
dc,ndemnedito')diel.9 Berquins;:-Writifig8 - wgr-oltievet
but hecoddrii With/irate dourage':! `tivain 'tiotf !.a. I p artisan` rot
Lutheraniinibutr, I 'cannot ;agree,Ito7tCaliirinly,imhbeVePtriightl
He waburndd1iniI529ionhithe I Plake f de;
nisl-r)D
Greve' dn ParisI flt)iti.1
I)
h ()AI
Ilbit4P1 oprn1Mf)sQne, ,T Frie4P1,1 RefgrjA.g4ig:13,i
becanse,t e
nofiireach;
the popular, elements,.A!,-,Indeed, ( their later Huguegot momcii
meat strongly., appealeol o :the kr,enclli _neb
dur,ingi
b
the ,prer alyiniera, ,it-,asespecallyarriongtlie,`!httle
the, , i?pc_1,9qti, the J a.rder.s, yeay.ersari,clf merchants.,j, stndents;
and ;c gLbbtlert hat; we ind it he sparlcs the,,,Lutheran ireyoltrn;
",..ignor,ant ) people became , oyernight ,eNpellent theologians.
It wasthe, timewhqn,JacQdngu; tpj
rnus bartendersi
argued .abont
gospel, 9tippc, sot' Fr,ance',s1 even n.niy,ert;
ejiagitation2 gained, ,t h el
;
sities.endorse
,
public places, as well as intellectuals and princes, ,The; first!
Lutheran victims were not in Germany but in Brussels
Henry Vos and Johann Eschand Jean Leclerc in France.
jaeNiCaTrder as Martyred iii'Meti,dri&S'dkag'
'
,
gin Pauvan11was arreted and urqd1 iuI525on the Place
de cGreve infrParis..191 The ',movement, in) itsnincept ion had it s1
Kl(iry 1111) ,if111111,--)10)
. Ii\4 2irlerr1iriel,fltitra?1 yf_r) ) 96),i
(To
17
On, the proceeduigs by Parliament against Berquin see Charles
c1itiicakif;%g114;1A,ii.AePttIn9'ieci!
1 "1"1-1 1 I431-1111
11111 '' 11' 917 . 1
Albert Autin, L' echec de la Refornie en Fziie dii XVIe sicle )
011JrIiI0
(Toulon, 1917) , p. 133.
18 Hans H. Peters, "Luthail titiicas iitia)rdeasclifiltiZraer in
Frankreich wahrend des io
A7tTsiiadcaritsTiiliA- und
evangeliscke Kirchei,>,(i36,)T.12366! ,FIrli,11 )\")\ 1.) \ ,"%11'1\ )
1'881;FiancOis,Eambert to Prederic --ofrISai6q, March, 1525; HdfrnitiC)
A fly! 00,
V./S0..$
jard, op. eft:, pp. 344:,347,.'. I/) V\lt
18
56
DANIEL WALTHER
martyrs before it had its theologians, in a time when "it

was almost improper for a Christian to die in his bed."21
Luther's books brought consolation to some but confused
others ; the anonymous Paris Bourgeois called him "a maker
of books," and deplored the damaging debate on the Real
Presence. "I have never believed it," wrote Farel, "but the
progress of the gospel in France is hindered by our divergences
and also by the reading of the first books of Luther which,
to a certain extent, endorse the adoration of saints and purgatory." 22 Opposition also arose from former sympathizers,
most intelligent among whom was Josse Clichtove of Flanders,
a former disciple of Lefevre, and Cousturier.23 Among the
literati who were drawn to the turmoil and were affected
by new ideas, we might recall that Marot, who was in Marguerite's service, was the gifted translator of the Psalms into
French. Lutheranism was no issue to him, but both Catholics
and Lutherans suspected him of heresy. He was jailed in
the Chatelet prison, not because of subversive ideas, but
because he ate lard during Lent! As he was pursued from
place to place until he found asylum in Marguerite's court,
he wrote that he was neither a Lutheran, much less a Baptist,
but God's alone.24
21 Ferdinand Buisson, Sebastien Castellion (Paris, 1892), I, 86; Jules
Bonnet, Aonio Paleario (Paris, 1862), p. 171.
22 Farel to Jean Pomeranus, October 8, 1525, Herminjard, op. cit.,
pp. 393-398: "In qua re versores librorum Martini male fratribus
consulunt, qui priora ejus opera, in quibus nonnihil Sanctorum
invocationi et Purgatorio defertur, non repurgant."
23 On Clichtove, ibid., p. 238: "Clicthoveus olim nosier" (Roussel
to Farel). Beside Clichtove, there were other opponents such as Cousturier ; Lucien Febvre,"Une question mal posee.. .," Revue Historique,
CLXI (1929), 48, 11.2.
24 Point ne suis Lutheriste
Ne Zwinglien, et moins Anabaptiste.
Je suis de Dieu par son fils Jesuchrist.
Oeuvres de Clement Marot (Paris, 1875), I, 153; Moore, op. cit., p. 181.
On other poets, see V. L. Saulnier, "Maurice Sceve, Et. de Bourget
Tabourot," Bibl. d'Human. et Renaiss., XIX (1957), 252-265.
57
Marguerite a Lutheran?
Did Marguerite read Luther's books ? It is not difficult
to establish that she kept in close touch with the Lutheran
writings before 1530. Her correspondence with Bishop Briconnet is, of course, well known. That correspondence, partly
published by Becker, began in 1521 and lasted for at least
three years. Moore conjectured that the correspondence was
vividly reminiscent of the "Babylonish captivity."25 (It
is true that the mystic language of both Marguerite and the
Bishop are suggestive of Luther's expressions.) The letter
by Sebiville, already mentioned, indicated that Marguerite
had received Luther's tract on monastic vows through Papillon. In 1524, she finished writing the Dialogue en forme de
vision nocturne, her most dogmatic writing, advocating salvation by grace alone. Soon after her trip to Madrid, where
her brother was imprisoned after the defeat at Pavia in 1525,
Gerbel informed Luther that Marguerite regularly received
Luther's writings through Count Sigismond of Hohenlohe
in Strasbourg, that "new Jerusalem." 26
Marguerite read Luther's books most assiduously in 1527
and 1528, keeping in touch with the Evangelicals in Strasbourg. Besides Hohenlohe, she corresponded with others,
especially Bucer and Capito ; the latter dedicated to her his
commentary on Hosea." Simon du Bois, the publisher of
Luther's translated works in France, also published Marguerite's Miroir de lame pecheresse (1531), together with the
25 P. A. Becker, "Marguerite Duchesse d'Alencon et Guillaume
Briconnet Eveque de Meaux, d'apres leur correspondance manuscrite,
1521-1524," BSHPF, XLIX (1900), 393-477, 661-667.
26 Marguerite d'Angouleme, Lettres (Paris, 1841), pp. 18o, 211,
215, 466. On Strasbourg, see L. Febvre, "La France et Strasbourg au
XVIe siecle. Un bilan," La Vie en Alsace (Strasbourg, 1925), pp. 239ff ;
(1926), 32ff ; F. Wendel, "Le role de Strasbourg dans la Reforme
francaise," L'Alsace Francaise, X (1930), I, toff.
27 Martin Bucer to Luther, August 25, 1530: "Nam Rex
veritate
alienus non est, et, jam recuperatis liberis, non add) h Pontifice et
Caesare, hac quidem in cause, pendebit. Turn nunquam suo officio
deest Christianissima illa heroina Regis soror .," Herminjard, op.
cit., II, 271.
DANIEL: WALTHER
Penitential Psalms, the i'Palter, and they Dialogue. The year

1533iimarked the. Teak. (of $Marguerite'k.s, evangelical_, interest :
Roussel-, Cograult,,and,Pertault preached , the , greatlydadverr,
tised serrnonsl of , that ,,year, in, the ,,Lotiy,re The ,.1.14. rpri1of
Marguerite,-,was,,reedited,and ,the, wrath , of the Sorbonne,
and ,theLnew movement fin .gengral}
against rherlin
it
wasiat}itight. } (ft :,,,Aft `.E)1111.,)
[Not o.r4y,di4,.Marguerit,e,read Luther, .but she. ;translated
Agste.r,,,publishedasr a1:tr.p.positiQp t of, the.
Luther;
Salve,fRegi,na.!...8[1,41remly, in I525,1Sebalclus Heyderi
knowri.Tureinberg , teacher and,i musician,_ ,ha,d ,tra,risposed,
the!. Salz2e,-.Peginct, to -christ (Salvel-Jesu_chy4te).2?,,,ThiS ,Same
prayer.t, appeared \ in,\Farel:s , T534 f edition pf. thee 54prtmqire,.
arid from, that .. prayer; ,is derived , thebibeautiful first , hymn
of ;French lE'rotestantisin, of which. Marguerite was, most likely
/,etetsalue mon certairi,,g4lempteur.-i : t
the ,author,:,,`J
t).Two.,,eforinatio,n specialists insist 0-14,1144qti's tinfluence)
Abel Lefyartc, who qualifies:
onilVlarguerite was important;
her without reservation,,a,,,Lutherau,,,and(?) Henri Strohli
who :sees all,o,f,her tpoetris 4I-11,-(lier:s, basic', teachings., AV.:(G.
1Vioore. a.lso,r,yvho,, has - carefully, examined .the. ,texts rof the
Dialogue ,of 5gz[ a.rAd Ithe. Miroir, has, pointed to, the. striking,
similarities between} Marguerite's and ,Luther's
Marguerite(Luth,er.constantly, used the, marriage relationship,
as ,a,symbolf,of the,iptimacy,-,heteen,Qod. and,.the ,soul ;the,
theisoul,
crowning yvprkpf !faith rbeing -the union,i9f
of manand Marguerite mentions it in the very title. Luther's
<
ti
_it SIP; f .3'')i ' "
is of courses
c11tqrUt
"You may pray ',the 7 Rater as ,,ofteni.as' yolk\ wish,7 3,1 and
' is
,?41
ri,.i
rF . rr
.")
Ydie4 eri Jranslatfore-1.

18g6y;Revui `de la Renaissance;
`'is2Mal-itiefite'de )1\Taaire,
d.3 ieil4u:1,.ar la Ro,inlie"de'
II
0 Jr,
.4
et advocatum
iV e:' 111.5 5) .
(d
L re
29 Sebaldus Heydenr,''Unitm`Ch'iisticm'Madecii641V"dse
nostrum aped
I 39
pdti,elm
'beab.
Tateinosiie",
est-ce-4Ue'dehOrs
'
A" \ "
'" 'r"r ".'1
)
;f
"
.t
THE FRENICH,LLITHERANS
59i
the 9Patill.ne ,aceento which, .;,Qlea41yo app_ears) ' in " they I Mizoiri.I.;
It is i cliff
to, ;define ylVfargaterite!,Set-eligiouSlioutiook,, fShel.
has )beer called4Attheraii,-"Qatholic;XalYinisits,,,s_pirittia-10.Skep; ;
: i-e'yapgelioat,1 tnystierrlarlypocritical. Mysti
seeinsytel)e,;a1;11-allientiand)accept:abloodesignationaBhel was,
draWnito-Ahe 11T,eo-,P.I.atcinic,..!tiotiortS1 of; Ficin(Besax.ion)land.,
Plethora' Siniiliar . view's: 6xpresSal(byl Picovillitn1:01 and) _cp:s.1
tigliorie hada) rnar;ked tinfluene:e rcnr,afarguerite:-.31; Thd-)Eleine)
type; of' )1cve-,:was:COined,.1)y tPelletier .du an!gias: th.eJ UphiloA
so,phylof/FtatiCe:;an 'antidote' to:/.114tcretlus) and, Ponipcitiazzil I
arid.waskaitype, fof Platonism
saW) among,
the Nicodemites "many cultured peopleftwhei WereEattr:ac,ted,
hyotheThilOsephy of iPlatil b.l.t"Were)tionterestedrin:1-efobtriing, !the church:;;i
T911 lo
IiEroffidhe!sotitset;:,,Marguevitei4/ttieclieveriyoystern Aq.3efind
out; fotrlierselfcikhatrmfas itaught);:a..nd'helievled:11MTI-leriintereA/
infithe-"Prot6Stant ltrends ilaSted3mptili 'about ,I536.fterrthei
affaitapfl)the.111/.iyar,;iiils_4sy-itye)JlisV2ire.,VECO4i4stiqWei, ushe)
acted";diff erently}kand plunged' (deeply' intO TAdolatTy;
rest. 11 iRayle;wrOte:(that, ,.after 33,she,behvediiriaAnanner)
whirchAte:: calxinistS )highlydeondetrinedci ' 'Of ,l3efore ithatitimel)
herai01,_
shenbelongedtd)ailinOstv emellyngroupg,,ace.O.rdingt
graphers'.S'hea1w'ayswaLutheran,'Mhinksj,aioh.ri'NoJi
says1Donmie ;;Ty'l 'She waaiLCaltholicb I that ifaitlfl
EY-JP:Y.)179(T
[1:;iifw
91- T
Ifizi?..51oicl s
Dialogue en forme de Vision nocturne entre. Ives noble, et excellence prin-.

c'd,aPitlairgWVia der r.PaiWeT,""PeVt;)
S riNV j
)
rearm) eteildeftintteuMacigne;:ChadOiteld'e t.fane;)i:kkl.).s:568-.) ItLapp'eatetl,:;
was written in 1524, the first of Marguerite's religious writings;

Lutie.n2RariFelwre;?Aitto.ur:-de PHeptameron (Paris; 4944)-,,?e_PP.
;
Moor e, okat,.,-ipp.: 18:7 H. 9.b
Y
,.:0"1101 ;!`"?! F9tunt
e'r51f
7311.cAndr6. Marie LI jepAisv,,Festugite,-,.\La.I.',PhilOSpphieiedei g:amouritkle1
Marsile
JailittOaturei(fr.ancaisecauVfVIe
i
iCA fiV Of) 91nol4p.n11. or,
32 Ioannis Calvinis opera quae supersunt omnia, VI, col600e.,,
I
jogrlylai/Viargueritecl'Angouleme,Ipt.echss,oldATen.pn(Reike
de Navarre. ahese ;'.Paris; ;i9.315)!,, -48:
u'' ,,\ f'
34 Hist. Eccles., I, 36; Pierre Bale,; Dict.V:hist;.(,eVeritc.3(Ttott.Ofddlia,
sOciv(parisr..,T.94)) pp.. 3, ,...0,34.:vt.h.,D
6o
DANIEL WALTHER
always hers." "On the contrary," writes Faguet, "she is

permeated with Calvinistic thought." 35 Some (Hyrsoix) accuse her of hypocrisy because of her "hatred for the Catholic
church." A clever formula is Doumergue's : "She thought
as a Protestant but acted like a Catholic."36 Brunetiere saw
neither a Catholic nor a Protestant in hershe merely belonged to the group of Rabelais and Marot. If she must be
confined to a sect it would be that of the Spiritual Libertines.
And Doumic calls her an insoluble case : "She was a woman,"
he said, "and you can't expect her to be logical." 37 And thus
we could multiply the quotations, of which jourda has made
a very careful inventory.38
Abel Lefranc was of the opinion that she was a Protestant.
The distinguished publisher of her last poems saw in her
Dialogue of 1524 her first literary and evangelical statement
where she affirms that salvation is in Christ alone, that man
cannot cooperate, and that grace is a gift of the Creator. The
Oraison de l' dme fidele discusses predestination; Le triomphe de
l'Agneau depicts Christ's victory over the law. Lefranc was
convinced that the Miroir was more revolutionary still. It
does reveal a type of Paulinismbut revolutionary ? Hardly.
At the same time, Marguerite in that writing does not entirely
reject the intervention of the saints or the efficacy of the
sacraments. But it is undeniable that her spiritual songs have
a Protestant accent. The spiritual song which she perfected
is her contribution to militant Protestantism. What Lefranc
saw in the Comedie joule au Mont-de Marsan was her condemnation of sensualism and Catholic bigotry." Her definition
36 "A mesure qu'elle se sent pros du terme de son existence, elle
adhere de toutes ses forces aux dogmes de la foi catholique qui a
toujours ete la sienne," Revue des Deux-Mondes, June 15, 1896, and:
"... plus on ira et plus it faudra expliquer les parties les plus elevees
de Marguerite de Valois par le Calvinisme...," Cosmopolis (April,
1896), p. 177.
36 Emile Doumergue, Jean Calvin (Lausanne, 1899), I, 406, 415.
37 Revue des Deux-Mondes (1896); ibid., (15 Juin, 1936).
38 Pierre Jourda, op. cit., p. 1032.
39
Abel Lefranc, Les Iddes Religieuses de Marguerite, (Paris, 1898),
61
of love, the "philosophy of France," is quite similar to that

of the antinomian sect of the Spiritual Libertines.
Sometimes her ideas were conflicting. On the one hand she
referred to "the elect whom God was pleased to choose"
and hoped that she was "deserving to be predestinated.On the other, she saw free will as a basic element in man's
redemption. While Protestants have claimed her as their own,
the Catholics have done the same. Vergerio, Contarini's
disciple, marveled at the spirit of the Queen of Navarre, and
compared her to Vittoria Colonna, Renata, and Leonora
Gonzaga. Those who saw in Marguerite a Catholic referred
to the fact that she received the Eucharist at Madrid, where
her brother, King Francis I, was jailed, and she took communion at the bedside of her mother. All this, in her friends'
eyes, was a mere gesture : her receiving the extreme unction,
praying often before a crucifix, etc. But Aleander thought
that she was won over to the new ideas, though she remained
always on excellent terms with the pope.
Marguerite's Mystic Nostalgia
Let us have another look at the cenacle of Meaux, where
Bishop G. Briconnet had gathered several men who were
under the spiritual influence of Lefevre and whose aim was
to reform the clergy. These men were suspected of heresy
for having published the New Testament in French, and the
Psalter." The anonymous Bourgeois wrote that "it is to be
noted that Meaux was infested by the false doctrine of Luther."
Off and on, there were Farel, Mazurier, F. Vatable, the Hebrew
scholar, and Caroli, with whom Calvin was to have so much
trouble, and Michel d'Arande, a little-known Augustinian
hermit.41 Marguerite wrote to Briconnet of her hunger "for
p. 27; Lefranc, Melanges (Paris, 1936). The Comedie was written Jan.Feb., 1548, a year before her death.
40 Lefevre to Farel, July 6, 1524, Herminjard, op. cit., I, 219.
41 Ibid., p. 41, n.; M. Bataillon, Erasme et l'Espagne (Paris, 1937),
'62
'DANIEL WALTHER t
bread; even[if-it were a few) crumbs" She .cOnipared [herself to

a lost sheep [in' affOreign 'land. ,' II; cOme ) to you [and Mr. oVabry
and ; the' other !gentlemen-) begging
'alin.sV if [she r,..)irote ), requesting also .to
granted )`-ànfalrrn clizick'3, to' be +aWakeried
from 'hershreavy arid' Mortal. slurhberE, 'sine& the I finie bag. come
r.r f21 Marguerite; a'wictim of Tspir tuah nostalgia; I used that
mystiC.-)ij argon ), [ sublirne
IVIiClieleto "Called) it,
.but proniised'that"slie would be 'their tinouthpiece: 'at the-Court.
ly:Oh. yes; AivioteBrkonriet; )".giVe the! Lord'ithat>littleoheaft
liberally, èntirely:, asking hei7;fo iritere6de ,With[theltriembets
offtlietroyial fliouSehold;; like Ste. :-Cecile, who woti!fierihusband
Atidrlit)seremed
'[ succeed, [ Rh= 'Margu'erite
informed BriOrin6t1:1--;`.Thre;;King and Madanie >have` decided,
'yesterday."l that
have it known( that I God'S truth
' '"' '
N
is ,rio 'lieresy.?!, 44' BUt that, was in, 152
if :By r 52q.F BriOnnef 'too !was suspected 'of Liitheranism,' and
;he I renounced hurriedly and 'in` 'profuse terms' what ohe was
accused of. Briconnet said ;that
alinost the' whOle
earth is filled with his (Luther's) books, and since the masses
easily fall for new, things, ,a1;idl yveTe,,nduFsd lby the liveliness
of his style, [and] could be caught by the false and imaginary
liberty ,which he Preaches :I . [ for` thisr' reason . *e deem it
,,! A, .1 ,,,;
1 ,1.1i i LIF'.111'
i
p. 53O.fIn a,`,`Lutheran';-song . there is) anlallusiOm tO ^Michel and , MarI .1', ;i!
,+ 1 /
gueOt:
Vostre erreur'Creust jusques.alecon
,
' : 'Sdubz"
iriipleeoiiifeab'sie4"/ ''" '"'"(1."; " " . f
t Michelot et [en?].
lecon ,,N
Dieu,scet
,. ,ti
Ms. NO, 15939 'in the Library of the Societe de
du Protest. franc.
42 'Marguerite td EBricOnriefl
,
'"VbsugPria,'fit 'Par
vos oraisons , impetrep: de r l'indicible ',miericorde t ung:.reveilie-niatin
pour 4 pauvre endormie,,, afro quVIe setleve dp ispit marit etmortel
somme, puisque t!'llcit're est venue_ . 2 Et voyant de toutes
choses
en moy
de' d'effault,'Iiirijeib-1
iavde ci'llY6AieVtr"Pabry. et tatis
voz sieurs, vous requerant l'aumosne..." Herminjard, op. cit., p. 189.
"Soiez, la bonne saincteCecile;
freres,, et plusieurs aultres..." Briconnet torf MaTgikerite,,i,November v I I, 1,521,
ibid., 478; Rev. de thdol,.ct, de: que,st..relig., (Moritanban,t i9ooj, Soo:
!! Herminjard, op.1 Cit., p. 78.
.
THE"FRENCH LUTHERANS
)63
Otir,thity,to, eradicatelitr_entirely.;1 45'An'cl..hew4rncdlth clergy

ther&fwouldlhe Some,whoi-denythe
that fl'inJthese,last
existenCeilof purgatory and lithe ;invocation

among those affected 'by this; decree, lwasi.his<respected master,
ef eyre. ,Eurtherrno re,,rWhileT3ticonne.ft,,anath ernatiz eaLuther,
liel.keptil 'showing, the.,..greoitest..esteerri,f 01;)C1ecolompadius,
and SQugh.t:4and, If011oWedlithof adNfiee :of Bucer,f1 gip. yid .T 1)3'./
911.1
()A...NW))) ol
!-)d 5[1.2
hos.; ,.-pTlImli-!.ìllirtoir;';13-1itifSur00.ngr,.Q-Ai
iud
it m',-;().t 9f11
-ftri7/
r'The best 'known ot Marguerite s religious writings -is the
);)
fil.1;1!,i ) ,
t
) 1-,
`37-1.1;-`,1 9q" .
Oror thesinfuc is . T h e title teas'norjtpn-rovr>
'original. A number
-t Fr)t 1,-r?y ;TR
.f-tw
b7 :1009.ttri. I -hint
01 mirrors were written' before (See the Hulterniana, collection
1,:;+ cirtj
P1101,)1(1 ,11(y) te,p1./
10
at Brussers): Mzrouer des .dames-:,. Miro0 0 Ruybroeck;
and.
nt))
w lop
'Reuchini
1 .wd
s Augenspiegel. Marguerite s -Mirefir is`"bihhan and
'Utro ts!, '01;
,R-sr
rwTh.t,{rt 1.0
cut t1essentially Pauline. Florimond lamented. Alas, w:hile King
Liny,
:to Po? no -,ios.):.!;
Francis wOrk.s to -protect- the -kingdom.' against the 'floods
I I')(T'iT
'to5s..AS.(10-.%
h!)-11""0.
'19.111c41-11 .0.E'd
of the Rhine, the Queen Of Navarre is endeavoring
to break
1-3o)1Dr.:!ti, 1:-).0+"-yt b-yki
.7,!i)(:(1`
trrit
-di 0,
the dikes ,and to, open the sluices." Florimond further staled.
1)(ti; .14:.-11.-119-,,f ,)
(R)rl'Al
t
the Queen- of Navarre' who maintains in- Ttance the
kliills.-911 P.9.(1111 )r1 Oal
?.U.
Pr F.x.11.7.1Citi tYA.09
disciples of Ent er. he alone place them
scrioo s. she
()9,
alone watches with marvelous care and keeps therriIrfquf
rom all
?,,sw -0,0\
torocpmiv :.(110filE) i; mo'i'l
h.arm:, 4u
Er(4-i
b r irw)
0.7T it rflutorfril
-The -Sorbonne resented Marguerite s insistence' on, justiffi ru ? i [
IT
+
7
'
cat on as e xpressed in the'Miroir U da especIany iuribug.
was
h iir.701. );
)f)!
Now at last he-had a-proof of lietesy: Marguerite wars accused
f:ytif
frwori
6r)11;.1.-ur
bri; (-frr);-,l)nr,.
of- not mentioning the saints; meritorious works, purgatory,
and of replacing the Salve Regina by a "Salutation to Chri t
,)(f.The) furniaboutt Marguerite:2silMiroir catiseduatTCprdelier
;thrown, into thef Seinei river.
monk,,:torcSugge.St5that
:1f axgilerit ciwa,Slliardlpressedi. and I rriany)il*epth e cwly*Atin
,-1-9\icIci
Mohtmore icy,ltriedr;to' discreditiherbat fJcdurt q- Dot i-Ftan Os,,, I

Arnw-)Emi I 0 110119 QS' 111391rT
t*art fi.RJ:bi-Ol'ci 7O.
45 See various letters by Briconnet to a) "Aux fideles de son dioCese"
and.!lp).;7A.0-,. el erg., de. s .dio cese; ; ' ex:11141j azd Lop
32o; Doumergue, op. cit., p. iio.
cis ,111Ì
Florirnona, Op 40.rnond,1 ./TR$toil!e, cle la weisompli.71.,30 ,P.keresie,
(Rouen, i629), pp. 847, 848.
.1 fooi.21-tact
or
64
DANIEL WALTHER
was not impressed. "Let's forget about her," the king said,
"she loves me too much. She will never believe other than
what I believe and never will she endorse a religion that
would cause prejudice to my state." 47
A play by the students at the College of Navarre exposed
her and Roussel to public ridicule. Eventually Marguerite
lived through the crisis. The monk who had suggested that
she be thrown into the river was to undergo the ordeal himself, but she intervened in his favor. The authors and players
of the comedy were punished. As for the Miroir, the King's
confessor, Guillaume Petit, stated: "They take up arms against
an excellent woman who is at the same time protector and
mother of all virtues." Most conspicuous of all was the fact
that the prosecuting theologians had not even read the book.
Beda was jailed. The Miroir was taken off the list of forbidden
books. Nicolas Cop, son of the king's physician and brother
of Jean, another "novator," gathered the Faculties to report
to the king that Marguerite's book had been neither attacked
nor even read, and the Bishop of Senlis said he found only
good things in this book unless he had forgotten all his
theology.48
From a Catholic viewpoint the Miroir was unorthodox.
Although Marguerite still could not disentangle herself from
the mystic jargon which she used in corresponding with
Briconnet, the idea was clear: she applied to her spiritual
life the notion of gratuitous justification, undeserved and
sufficient.
To sum upbut how dangerous it is to conclude! On the
question that is still debated: was Marguerite a Protestant,
a Lutheran ? we attempt to say : No, if by Protestantism is
meant a rigidly defined doctrine, be it Lutheran or Calvinistic ;
Yes, if by Protestantism we mean an effort at renewing church
47 Pierre de Bourdeille, abbe de Brantome, Oeuvres (Paris, 1864-82),
VIII, 216.
48 Jean Calvin, Opera . . . (ed., Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss; Brunsvigae, 1863-190o) I, 27-30.
65
and society, belief in salvation by grace as advocated by

Lefevre, and reaching directly out to God in mystic fashion.
Marguerite's religious attitude is incomprehensible, if she
is to be hemmed into a confessional system; but it is simple
if we consider her thirst for knowledge and love, and her
unconcern as to who would quench her thirst. We cannot
see her in the Lutheran fold any more than we can make a
chauvinistic Frenchman out of Lefevre for the sake of accommodating a modern historical conception. While Lefevre
did greatly influence his generation by his Commentaries, we
do not overlook Luther's influence in France, where some of
his ideas coincided with those of Lefevre and Marguerite.
Had Luther been endowed with a gift or concern for proselytism like Calvin's, a firmer basis might have been established
in France.
Intellectually independent, yet easily influenced, Marguerite was not impressed by the stiff inexorableness of
existing orthodoxy: "My religion is based on James' words:
to my God a heart sound and clean, and to my fellowmen the
power to do good." This charming and gifted mother of the
French Renaissance was, to paraphrase Ronsard's lyrical
expression, the most beautiful flower ever born on a golden
morning.4 9
49
The two last lines in Ronsard's "Ode Pastorale" are:

"... La plus belle fleur d'eslite
Qu'oncques l'aurore enfanta."
Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses, I, 23.
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MAN : II

JEAN R. ZURCHER
Serninaire Adventiste du Saleve, Collonges-sous-Saleve
(Haute Savoie), France
Ethical and Religious Notions of Anthropology

If Biblical anthropology can give us an image of man which
far surpasses the conclusions that may be drawn from ordinary
experience, it is because it refuses to know man other than
in his individual and collective history. Man is, for it, a historical being, and his image must bear strongly the mark of his
historical specificity. Moreover, his personality has existence
only through his relationship with others and especially
through his relationship with God. Man without God does
not exist and consequently he could not become an object
of knowledge. The existence of man is made effective only by
and in confronting God. That is why it can be said that
Biblical anthropology is always and primarily a reference to
God. "Man does not know himself truly except as he knows
himself confronted by God. Only in that confrontation does
he become aware of his full stature and freedom and of the
evil in him." 2
I. Man as Creature or the Notion of Dependence. If, then, the
bond which unites man with God is the basis of Biblical
anthropology, the first characteristic of this relationship
is expressed in the double affirmation, man is a creature, God
is his Creator.
In fact, the entire creation has for its objective this position
of God vis--vis man. This irreversible rapport between the
Creator and the creature is the unique motif of all the moveH.
The first part of this article was published in A USS, II (1964),

156-168.
2 Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man (New York,
1941), I, 131.
CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MAN
67
ment of the world. Desiring a witness to his work, God speaks

to himself and decides on the creation of man: "Let us make
man in our image, according to our likeness." And Genesis
adds, "God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them." 3
The entire Bible echoes this fundamental declaration of the
creation of man, and in this it opposes itself once more to
the most widespread anthropological concepts of antiquity
as well as of modern times. Certainly, as Karl Barth has said
so well, "Natural science may be our occupation with its view
of development; it may tell us the tale of the millions of
years in which the cosmic process has gone on ; but when
could natural science have ever penetrated to the fact that
there is one world which runs through this development ?
Continuation is quite a different thing from this sheer
beginning, with which the concept of creation and the Creator
has to do." 4
Limited to our anthropological point of view, these concepts establish in the first instance, the absolute dependence
of man vis--vis God. The existence of the creature beside
the Creator is possible only through an uninterrupted participation in Being. Not only is it true that "all things were
created by him, and for him," but "by him all things consist."
"In Him we live and move and have our being." 5 Creation
signifies here that while there exists a reality different from
God, it does not exist in itself, but only through God. This
different reality is thus not autonomous; it cannot be God
any more than it can exist without God. In other words,
there is not on one side the creature and on the other
the Creator, as two independent realities, the world and
God, as if there were two kingdoms, two separate worlds. We
have here neither pantheistic monism nor cosmological
dualism.
Gn I : 27.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (New York, 1959), p. 51.
5 COL I : I6, 17; Acts 17 : 28.
68
JEAN R. ZURCHER
"What God does not grudge the world is creaturely reality,

a creaturely nature and creaturely freedom, an existence
appropriate to the creation, the world. The world is no appearance, it exists, but it exists by way of creation. It can, it
may exist alongside of God, by God's agency. Creaturely
reality means reality on the basis of a creatio ex nihilo, a
creation out of nothing. Where nothing existsand not a
kind of primal matterthere through God there has come
into existence that which is distinct from Him. And since
there is now something, since we exist because of divine
grace, we must never forget that, as the basis of our existence
and of the existence of the whole world, there is in the background that divinenot just facere, butcreation. Everything outside God is held constant by God over nothingness.
Creaturely nature means existence in time and space, existence
with a beginning and an end, existence that becomes, in
order to pass away again." 6
The Biblical notion of creation then is not a simple theoretical question ; it is a question of existence. The creature exists
only by the good will of the Creator. The life of man depends
on the grace of Him who has created the world and who
maintains its life. If the authors of the Bible return constantly
to the activity of the Creator, it is in order to emphasize
more strongly the omnipotence of God and the absolute
dependency of man.' For them it is less a question of recalling the original event, the first beginning of man, than to
establish the fact of his existing only to the extent that God
wills it. These continual allusions to God the Creator develop
to the maximum our consciousness of being only a creature,
that is to say, a being continually menaced by the possibility
excluded by God and by God aloneof nothingness and of
ruin. This possibility, on the other hand, depends entirely
on the free decision of the creature, and on it alone.
The absolute dependence of the creature in relation to the
6 Barth, op. cit., P. 55.
7
Ps 33 : 8; 103 : 14 = Job io : 9; 33 : 6; Ps 139 : 13-16.
69
Creator emphasizes without doubt the smallness of man and

his state of perpetual grace, but does not imply thereby a
notion of imperfection, of weakness, even of sin, as is so often
believed under the influence of dualistic philosophy. According
to the Bible, the creature, no more than the creation, is evil,
because he is not God, or simply because he is distinct from
God. The finite world, dependent and contingent, is not evil
because of its finitude, of its dependence or of its contingency.
In the same way, man is not a fallen being because of his state
of creatureliness. On the contrary, the Bible affirms expressly
and emphatically that the entire creation is good because of
the fact that it is of God: "God saw all that he had made; and
behold it was very good." For all that God had created is
good." "His work is perfect : for all his ways are judgment : a
God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
But as for men, if they are corrupt it is not the fault of God,
the shame is to his children. For "God has made man upright ;
but they have sought out many inventions." 8
According to the Bible, the principle of evil is not in the
fact of creation, or of not being God; this is why, moreover,
evil did not originally exist. Karl Barth affirms : "This whole
realm that we term evildeath, sin, the Devil and hellis
not God's creation, but rather what was excluded by God's
creation, that to which God has said 'No.' And if there is a
reality of evil, it can only be the reality of this excluded and
repudiated thing, the reality behind God's back, which He
passed over, when He made the world and made it good.
Gn 1 : 31, To, 12, 18, 21, 26; i Ti 4 : 4; Dt 32 : 4, 5; Ec 7 : 29.
"The whole Biblical interpretation of life and history rests upon the
assumption that the created world, the world of finite, dependent
and contingent existence, is not evil by reason of its finiteness . . .
Nevertheless Christianity has never been completely without some
understanding of the genius of its own faith that the world is not evil
because it is temporal, that the body is not the source of sin in man,
that individuality as separate and particular existence is not evil by
reason of being distinguished from undifferentiated totality, and that
death is not evil though it is an occasion for evil, namely the fear of
death." Niebuhr, op. cit. p. 167; cf. idem., p. 169.
8
JEAN R. ZURCHER
70
Ànd God saw everything that He had made, and behold it

was very good.' What is not good God did not make ; it has
no creaturely existence. But if being is to be ascribed to it at
all, and we would rather not say that it is non-existent, then
it is only the power of the being which arises out of the weight
of the divine `No'." 9
The Bible clearly shows that evil appears in the universe
and in the world only with the desire of the creature to wish
to be self-sufficient and to realize its being independently of
Being, as if the creature could exist separated from the Creator.
In other words, the sin of man resides essentially in this
pernicious and perpetually renewed temptation to make himself "God" rather than being willing to be only a creature
"in the image of God." "The real evil," declares Reinhold
Niebuhr, "in the human situation, according to the prophetic
interpretation, lies in man's unwillingness to recognize and
acknowledge the weakness, finiteness and dependence of his
position, in his inclination to grasp after a power and security
which transcend the possibilities of human existence, and in
his effort to pretend a virtue and knowledge which are beyond
the limits of mere creatures." 10
However, this may be, the simple possibility of the creature's being able to break the very order of creation presupposes that man, inasmuch as he is a creature of God, has received
a power of individualization which permits him to think
and act freely, whether in accord with the will of the Creator,
or contrary to this will. This is what the story of the creation
of man indicates : after having affirmed first of all that he is a
creature, it points out : "God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him." 11
2. Man as the Image of God or the Notion of Freedom. To
the idea of man's nature as creature, the story of creation
thus adds a complementary notion : that of his being in the
9 Barth, op.
10 Niebuhr,
cit., p. 57.
op. cit., p. 137.
11 Gn
1 : 27.
71
image of God. The first term marks the fundamental distinction between the creature and the Creator, while the second
emphasizes, on the contrary, that which God and man have
in common between them.
Although this concept of image and of likeness of God is
found explicitly only in Genesis," the teaching of the Old
Testament on the subject of man always implies it. The New
Testament repeats it a number of times," and these allusions
make its comprehension easier; for although the sense of the
expression appears clear, it has been a subject of discussion
by theologians for centuries. A great number of them think
that the Hebrew terms selem, "image," and denial, "likeness,"
designate the spiritual or moral functions of man: perfection,
freedom, reason, etc. ; others see in them one of the constitutive substances of human nature: the immortal soul or the
divine in man ; while still others, on the contrary, think that
these terms relate to psycho-physical nature, since in the
Bible they designate regularly an exterior physical appearance,
a plastic image, effigy or statue.14
In our opinion, with the exception of those interpretations
influenced by dualistic philosophy, these divergences are
more apparent than real. For us, physical representation is
always the expression of a corresponding psychological reality.
If then the exterior aspect of man is "in the image" of the
Creator, this is due to some superior power in man which
not only distinguishes him from the rest of creatures, but also
causes him to exist in the "likeness of God." A careful examination of the text in Genesis, moreover, confirms this point
of view. If man is created "in the image of God," this signifies,
first of all, that he is the representative of God on earth. In
all the ancient Orient, an image was a manifestation, and a
sort of incarnation of that which it represented. Thus the
image of a god or of a sovereign expressed his real presence
Gn I : 26, 27; 5 : 1. 3; 9 : 6.
Jas 3 : 9; I Cor II : 7; Eph 4 : 24; Col 3 : lo.
14 Cf. Niebuhr, op. cit., pp. 152 ff.; p. 153, n. 4.
12
13
JEAN R. ZURCHER
72
and his dominion over the place where it was set up. Accordingly, man must exercise his function of representation by
ruling the world in general, and the animal world in particular.
This is precisely what the text specifies : "Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness : and let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creeped upon the earth." 15 In this sense, on earth man
is "the image and glory of God," 16 to use Paul's expression.
But if the Creator could give man "dominion over the works
of [his] hands," if he has "put all things under his feet"
according to Psalm 8, which is certainly our best commentary
on the theme of the image of God, this is in relation to the
clearly indicated fact that "Thou hast made him a little lower
than God, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." 17
Referring to this text, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
shows that there is a direct relation between the dominion
of man and his moral behavior in regard to his Creator.
"Likeness of God" is a function of moral perfection, of a certain state of holiness which in its turn depends on obedience
freely committed to the divine will. 18 Man can be the representative of God on earth only to the extent that his bonds
with the Creator are renewed "in knowledge after the image
of him that created him." 15 The being of man is not only a
question of existence ; it depends also on the knowledge of
God. Life eternal is "that they might know thee the only
true God." 20 And this knowledge of God implies the consent
of man, a free decision of a creature.
Not only does God confer the privilege of being on that
which is not himself, in giving to him a characteristic reality,
a nature, but also he gives the human creature a power,
15
Gn I : 26.
16 1 Cor I I : 7.
Ps 8 : 6, 7.
Heb z : 6-11.
19 Col. 3 : To.
20 Jn 17 : 3.
17
19
73
similar to that of the Creator, which permits him to think and

to act, to accept or to refuse Being. This is what it means to
have been created in the likeness of God. Man created in the
image of God is free, with an absolute freedom in the sense that
his life and death no longer depend on the Creator, but on
his own free decision. Access to "the tree of life" depends
simply on his good pleasure to will to recognize God as
Creator and his own nature as creature, or on his decision to
dispense with God and to be himself "as God." On this major
decision depends at the same time the existence of man and
of the entire human reality in all its manifestations. For in
truth, the liberty God gives to the creature in creating him
in his image, in his likeness, means there exists a contingency,
a possibility of action by the creature, a freedom of decision,
a power of being.
Karl Barth remarks, "But this freedom can only be the
freedom appropriate to the creature, which possesses its
reality not of itself, and which has its nature in time and
space. Since it is real freedom, it is established and limited
by the subjection to law, which prevails in the universe and
is again and again discernible ; it is limited by the existence
of its fellow creatures, and on the other hand by the sovereignty of God. For if we are free, it is only because our Creator
is the infinitely free. All human freedom is but an imperfect
mirroring of the divine freedom." 21
Let us note, in any case, that the freedom of choice God
has given man is not that of choosing between good and evil,
as too often is concluded from the story of the two trees in the
Garden of Eden. The freedom of the creature as God conceived
it originally consists essentially in knowing "to refuse the
evil, and choose the good." 22 Barth acutely remarks, "Man
is not made to be Hercules at the cross-roads. Evil does not
lie in the possibilities of the God-created creature. Freedom
to decide means freedom to decide towards the Only One
21
22
Barth, op. cit., p. 56.

Is 7 25.
74
JEAN R. ZURCHER
for whom God's creature can decide, for the affirmation of

Him who has created it, for the accomplishment of His will;
that is, for obedience. But we have to do with freedom to
decide. And here too danger threatens. Should it happen that
the creatures makes a different use of his freedom than the
only possible one, should he want to sinthat is, to 'sunder'
himself from God and from himselfwhat else can happen
than that, entered into contradiction to God's will, he is
bound to fall by his disobedience." 23
Now, this is precisely the meaning of the dramatic recital
of the Fall, as it is related for us in Genesis. Some think of it
as a myth, a legend or a parable; but call it what you will,
to deny its historical reality is to renounce any desire to
comprehend the nature of man as it is daily manifested with
increasing evidence. Existentialist writers have described
it with loyalty and precision, at times even with brutality
and cynicism. This human reality is composed of misery,
anguish, contradictions, vanities, a reality which the Bible
very simply calls a carnal nature, because it is controlled by
sin. And this affirmation constitutes precisely the third
characteristic of Biblical anthropology, which after having
declared man to be a creature, but a creature in the image of
God, presents him to us finally as a sinful man.
3. Man as Sinner or the Notion of "Sarx." Man could be
nothing else than a creature; the fact of being a creature
in the image of God is then a particular privilege. Now this
privileged situation of man, participating at the same time
in the determinism of Nature and in the freedom of God,
necessarily constitutes a problem. This is resolved by the
Creator, but the solution must also be freely entered into by
the creature. Being thus at once both free and bound, man is
tempted wrongly to interpret his privileged situation. The
danger, the only one, is that man may forget that he is only a
creature, that he derives everything from his Creator, that he
has every freedom, save that of dispensing with God, every
23
Barth, /oc. cit.
75
position except that of God. For even if God had made man a
god, he would not have remained less a creature. The absolute
danger is that man himself may wish to attribute something
to himself, that he may seek to become his own end. The mortal danger is that man may touch the forbidden fruit of the
tree of good and evil, that is that he may transgress the limits
of creaturely condition and desire to become more than a
creature.
These are exactly the terms in which the problem is found
presented in the story of Genesis. The text specifies that God,
in His goodness, had clearly traced the boundaries, established
the conditions of life and warned man of the danger that he
would have if he willed to change the order of Creation. The
permanent presence of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, marking the boundary between man and God, must
permanently remind him of the necessity of God and the
absolute condition of his freedom. 24
We do not know whether or not man by himself would
have transgressed the order of God. For the false interpretation he has of his situation at a given moment, which becomes
the source of temptation with inevitable consequences, is
truly not the product of human imagination. It is suggested
to man by a celestial being represented by the serpent, whose
experience of evil precedes the creation of man. 25 It is not
relevant here to probe into that which the apostle Paul calls
"the mystery of iniquity." 26 Although theological explanations
of it are infinitely varied, there can be no doubt that the Fall
with its universal consequences constitutes a fundamental
premise of Biblical teaching regarding the nature of man.
It is certainly possible to give many names to the often
contradictory powers which act in us, but it is impossible
to deny them. Every sane psychology is forced to admit that
the choice of the conscience is not determined alone by
24
Gn
2 : 15-17.
zs Gn 3 : 22; Jn 8 : 44; I Jn 3 : 8; Is 14 : 12-15; Eze 28 : 11-19.

26 2
Th
2 : 7.
76
JEAN R. ZURCHER
value judgment, but that there are also forces active contrary
to these very values.
The experience of evil is universal and the result of the first
sin manifests itself in the life of every man. Often without
knowing its origin, pagan writers have described the effects
of it in a language strangely similar to that of the apostle
Paul. Plautus, for example, makes one of his characters
say: "I knew how I ought to be, but miserable person that
I am, I could not do it." The Latin poet Ovid wrote: "Desire
counsels one thing, reason another." "What is it then,"
cries Seneca, "which when we lean to one side, pulls to the
other ?" And Epictetus affirms, "He who sins does not do
what he wills to do and does what he does not will." Thus,
men have ever identified in themselves this duality between
good tendencies and evil, and after the fashion of Paul
have experienced human powerlessness to accomplish the
good. "What I would, that I do not; but What I hate, that
I do." "This duplicity of man is so evident," writes Pascal,
"that there are those who have thought that we have two
souls. A simple subject appears to them incapable of so great
and so sudden varieties of unbounded presumption." This is
probably what led Plato, and after him all the dualistic
philosophers, to believe that the conflict is between soul and
body, whereas Christian psychology teaches us that the
conflict exists in the conscience between "the law of the mind,"
powerless in itself, and "the law of sin," to which we are
captive. On this view, the present situation of natural man
is no longer that of a being absolutely free to choose between
the forces which solicit him, for this choice has been made in
the course of his history contrary to his nature.
In yielding to the foreign power which solicited him, man
from the beginning set himself in a direction contrary to God.
Having failed to recognize his true existence as creature, he
has sought life where it is not to be found. So doing, he has
directed his being contrary to the order of creation. In disobeying the law of God, he has become a slave of the law of
77
sin, for one is always the slave of that which has conquered
him. 27 His power of self-direction is alienated to the power of
sin, and because of the solidarity of the human species, all
humanity was involved by the choice of the first man. For,
"as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned . . " 28
Commenting on Romans 7, on the present situation of man
as he is subject to the dominion of sin, Paul Tillich writes:
"It is our human predicament that a power has taken hold
over us which is not from us but in us . . . The name of this
power is sin . . . Sin in the singular with a capital 'S.' Sin as a
power, controlling world and mind, persons and nations."
And examining what it is within us which gives a dwelling
place to this power, he answers : "But one thing is certain.
Paul and with him the whole Bible, never has made our body
responsible for our estrangement from God, from our world,
and from our own self. Body, flesh, members, that is not the
one sinful part of us, with the inmost self, mind, and spirit
comprising the other, sinless part. But our whole being, every
cell of our body and every movement of our mind is both
flesh and spirit, subjected to the power of Sin and resisting
its power." 29
The carnal reality of man is thus a real anthropological
notion, although not in the common and ordinary sense that
is true of the other terms already studied. First, the Hebrew
and Greek equivalents of "flesh" are never employed to
designate a constitutive element of the being, as in the case
with their terms for "body" and "spirit." Moreover, the
notion of flesh is so closely bound up with each of the other
anthropological notions that it includes them all at the same
time that it surpasses them. This notion, in fact, introduces
z Pe z : 19; Jn 8 : 34; Rom 6 : 16.
Rom 5 : 12.
29 Paul Tillich, "The Good I Will, I Do Not," RL, XXVIII (19581959), 540-44.
27
28
78
JEAN R. ZURCHER
an ethical and religious sense absolutely unique, without the

comprehension of which our knowledge of man is altogether
incomplete, if not false. Certain aspects of it, indeed, have not
escaped existential psychology.
For all these reasons and still others, it is imperative that we
define clearly the anthropological notion, both ethical and
religious, contained in the Hebrew briar and in the Greek sarx.
This is all the more important since Christian theology rapidly
lost the true meaning under the influence of Greek thought
which designated by "flesh" only the corporeal substance
(the body itself insofar as it is material substance, as opposed
to spiritual substance) and which, in addition, saw in the one
the principle of evil and in the other the principle of good.
This metaphysical dualism is absolutely foreign to Jewish and
Christian thought, just as is strictly anthropological dualism.
There are numerous texts to be found in which the term
"flesh" is used simply to designate the fleshly parts of the
body 30 or the entire body insofar as it is visible and materia1.31
But, even in these cases, the part designated fleshly or carnal
is never placed in opposition to another part not so designated.
On the contrary, the Bible explicitly affirms of man that "he
is flesh." 32 All that is in him is carnal, to the point that Paul
can conclude: "I am carnal." 33 The carnal reality of man is so
completely applicable to all that is human that the expression
"all flesh" comes to cover the whole of humanity. 34
Like soma, psuche and pneuma, sarx also designates essentially an indivisible totality, a nature of the complete man.
Even more emphatically, sarx defines as carnal the very state
of the personality, its essence, the "I" as Saint Paul so clearly
declares. And to better demonstrate that this carnal reality
is applied to the totality of the being as well as to each one of
Gn 2 : 21; 41 : z; Job to : I I ; Eze 37 : 6-8; Lk 24 : 39; 2 Cor 12 : 7.
Num 8 : 7; Ex 30 : 32; 2 Ki 6 : 3o; Jn 6 : 51; Acts 2 : 26, 31;
Cor. 15 : 39; etc.
32 Gn 6 :3 (RSV); Ps 78 :39.
33 Rom 7 : 14.
34 Gn 6 : 13, 17; Ps 136 : z5; Lk 3 : 6; Acts 2 : 17; etc.
3
31
79
its parts, as an adjective it qualifies each of the other anthropological notions. Each nature is found to be conditioned by
sarx. Its influence is exercised on the body 35 as well as on the
mind.36 It determines the emotional life 37 with its passions
and its desires 38 as well as the mental life, characterized by
will and thought.39
But this is not all. Further analysis of the notion sarx shows
that flesh defines not only the human being in himself, but
also the whole human sphere, all that touches man from near
or far, all in the created world that bears his imprint, all that
is humanized by man. Thus, not only "that which is born
of the flesh is flesh," but "they that are after the flesh do
mind the things of the flesh." "He that soweth to his flesh shall
of the flesh reap corruption," for "the works of the flesh are
manifest, which are these ; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,
drunkenness, revellings, and such like . . ." 40
As is evident, this nature, which Christian psychology
calls "carnal," is manifested in man, in his life and in his
actions, everywhere and in all places that he exercises responsibility. This is why Paul defines this nature by such
characteristic expressions as "to live after the flesh," or "to
walk after the flesh," or again, "to war after the flesh." 41
Sarx thus is more than the substance of the human being,
more even than his psychological structure: it is rather, as
has been said, "the particular dimension in which the life
of natural man manifests itself." 42
Finally, Pauline theology accords to the notion sarx an
34 C01. 2 : II.
36 Col. 2 : 18.
37 Rom 8 : 6.
38
Gal 5 : 24, 16.
39 Eph 2 : 3.
4 Jn 3 : 6; Rom 8
41 Rom 8 : 4, 8, 9,
42 Mehl-Koehnlein,
: 5; Gal 6 : 8; 5 : 19-21.
12, 13; 2 Cor 10 : 2, 3.
op. cit., p. 14.
8o
JEAN R. ZURCHER
ethical and religious sense of the highest importance, which

we must make more precise. The authors of the Old Testament,
by use of the Hebrew term beigdr and by comparison with God,
had already emphasized that which is creaturely in man : his
limits, his finitude, his powerlessness, his weakness. 43 But
the apostle Paul would appear to go further, in that he establishes a definite connection between sarx and sin. "I," he
said, "am carnal, sold under sin. For I know that in me (that
is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present
with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not : but the evil which I
would not, that I do." For "with the flesh [I serve] the law
of sin." 44 In other words, a mysterious power makes man the
slave of "the law of sin," incapable of submitting himself to
"the law of God," even when he delights in it. And this power
which dwells in him isolates him from God, makes him powerless and presses him to act against God. 45
Does this mean that man is a sinner because he is carnal ?
Is the flesh then the principle and the seat of sin, as is often
thought ? If such were the case, it would be difficult to understand how, in the search for God, the flesh as well as the soul
"longeth for thee." 46 If the flesh were evil in itself would God
propose to pour out his Spirit on all flesh ?47 Also, if the flesh
were the principle of evil in man, how could Jesus have lived
in the flesh to be "in all points tempted like as we are, yet
without sin ?" 48 By the very fact that "God sending his own
Son . . . for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," it is possible
to conclude that the two terms "flesh" and "sin" ought not
to be regarded as designating the same and single thing. 49
43 Gn 6 : 3; Ps 78 : 39; Is 40 : 6; Dt 5 : 26; Is 49 : 26; 66 : 16;
Jer 12 : 12; Eze 21 : 9; Ps 9 21.
"Rom 7 : 14, 18, 25.
" Rom 8 : 7, 8.
46 Ps 63 : 2; Is 40 : 5.
47 Joel 2 : 28; Acts 2 : 17.
48 Heb 4 : 15; I Pe 2 : 22; 2 Cor 5 : 21.
46 Rom 8 : 3.
81
If such were the case, Paul could not have spoken of the
possibility of man's being delivered from the bondage of sin
while continuing to live "in the flesh." Still less could he say,
"That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our
mortal flesh." 50
A careful analysis of all texts treating of the flesh and of
sin permits us not only to draw a sharp distinction between
these, but further leads to the conclusion that it is necessary
to establish a supplementary distinction between sin, properly
speaking, and the power of sin. On the one hand there is the
transgression itself, and on the other, the power of temptation;
the one is the evil consummated, the other, the source of all
possible temptations. In fact, "every man is tempted, when
he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when
lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin : and sin, when it is
finished, bringeth forth death." 51 In truth, "sin is the transgression of the law." "For where no law is, there is no transgression." Therefore, even if sin exists, "sin is not imputed
when there is no law." In other words, the knowledge of
sin is possible only with the knowledge of the law. "I had not
known sin, but by the law." 52
The act, however, of regarding himself in "the perfect law
of liberty," as "in a glass" has the effect only of showing to man
"his natural face," that is to say, his state of sin. 53 The law
revives in man the power of sin, "for without the law sin was
dead." "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not
known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."
With the commandment, sin revived : it "wrought in me all
manner of concupiscence," and "taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived me." So that which was in the
beginning only a potential sin ended by manifesting itself
as a sin, that is to say, by a transgression of the law. 54
Php 1 : 22, 24; 2 Cor 4 : Ix; r Pe 4 : 2; Gal
2 : 20.
51 Jas I : 14, 15.
Jn 3 : 4; Rom 4 : 15; 5 : 13; 7 : 7.

Jas I : 23-25.
54 Rom 7 : 7-13.
52 I
53
82
JEAN R. ZURCHER
From all this it is evident that the flesh is neither an evil

substance nor the power of evil that Paul sometimes personifies and calls simply "sin," nor above all, is it incarnate sin.
Flesh is only "flesh of sin" because man, a creature of God,
has separated himself from the Creator and has delivered
himself to the power of sin. "I am carnal," said Saint Paul,
because I am "sold under sin." "For I know that in me (that
is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present
with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I
would not, that I do." "Now if I do that I would not, it is no
longer I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." In other
words, the carnal state denotes the powerlessness of the
natural man to govern himself. In yielding to sin, he has alienated his freedom to the control of the power of sin, which now
dwells "in me (that is, in my flesh,) . . . bringing me into
captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." 55
Such is the tragic situation of carnal man, delivered to the
power of sin : a dead man who does not know true life because
he is a captive of powers contrary to life.56 For man to disobey
the law of life is to introduce in himself death. And this death
begins with the unbalancing of the personality. Instead of
livingwhich involves continuity, the creation of conscience
and the free unfolding of personalitycarnal man knows
only a miserable existence. Of the three terms of the law of
life: to endure, to create, to flourish, only the first remains.
We exist, but we do not live; and further, this duration is
passed in narrowness and sterility. From a spiritual point
of view this man is dead in spite of the duration in which his
existence is pursued. He has no spiritual future; rather he
has no other future than that of the flesh, which is death,
"for the wages of sin is death." 57
This makes understandable the anguished cry of Paul: 0
55
Rom 7 : 14, 18-2o, 23.
56 Eph 2 : 1-7; Col 2 : 13; Rom 6 : 23.

57 Rom 6 : 23 ; 8 : 13.
83
wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body
of this death ?" There is in this cry something of the existentialist Angst. With the apostle there was further the awareness
that the situation is such because he was alienated from God
and in revolt against him, because he was subject to sin in
spite of him. Nevertheless, even if in this respect Christian
anthropology recalls certain existentialist conclusions, happily
it does not stop there. Its last word has not been said with
any emphasis in affirmation of the anthropological reality
of human carnal nature. Quite on the contrary, its whole
raison d'tre resides in the revelations it brings anguished
man to draw him out of this impasse. For although man no
longer knows freedom, although he is a slave to powers contrary to life, he still has the possibility of being freed from
them and of being born to a new life, that of the Spirit. This
is why, to the question, "who shall deliver me from the body
of this death ?" Paul replies: "I thank God through Jesus
Christ our Lord." 58
With this response, Christian theology opens a new chapter,
that of Jesus Christ, bearer of the Spirit, proposing to us the
Spirit as an anthropological reality as certain as that of the
flesh, and alone able to deliver man from the dominion of sin.
(To be concluded)
58
Rom 7 : 24-25.
TRANSLITERATION OF HEBREW
CONSONANTS
1 =d
= b
= b
=g
= g
=d
;1 = h
1 = w
t = z
n = It
D= ;
' =Y
0 =k
z= b
'7 = 1
73= m
2 = n
0 =s
r =`
D= p
0 = 1'
2 = $
7= q
1 =r
PD =
te =
Il = t
t = t
MASORETIC VOWEL POINTINGS

T
=a
= a
, I (vocal shewa) =
17 ,
= i
e
=e
=
=
=0
=
Ts =
1 = 6
=u
4=
ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS

A AS
A ASOR
ADA J
AER
Af0
A fP
A JA
A JSL
Annales archeol. de Syrie

Annual, Amer. Sch. of Or. Res.
Annual, Dep. of Ant. of Jordan
American Ecclesiastical Review
Archiv fur Orientforschung
Archiv fur Papyrusforschung
Amer. Journal of Archaeology
Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang. and
Literature
ALBO Analecta Lovan. Bibl. et Orient.
ANF
The Ante-Nicene Fathers
AO
Acta Orientalia
ARG
Archiv fiir Reformationsgesch.
ARW Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
ASAE Annales, Serv. des Ant. de l'Eg.
ASB
Acta Sanctorum (ed. Bolland)
AThR Anglican Theological Review
AU SS Andrews Univ. Sem. Studies
BA
Biblical Archaeologist
B A SOR Bulletin, Amer. Sch. of Or. Res.
Bib
Biblica
BIES Bulletin, Israel Expl. Soc.
BIF AO Bulletin, Inst. Franc. d'Arch. Or.
BiOr
Bibliotheca Orientalis
BJPES Bulletin, Jewish Pal. Expl. Soc.
B JRL Bulletin, John Rylands Library
BMB
BQR
BR
BRG
BS
BT
BZ
CBQ
CC
CdE
CH
CIG
CIL
CIS
CJTh
CSEL
CT
ER
EThL
ET
HJ
HThR
HUCA
IEJ
Int
J ACh
Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth

Baptist Quarterly Review
Biblical Research (Chicago)
Biblioth. Rerum Germanicarum
Bibliotheca Sacra
Bible Translator
Biblische Zeitschrift
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Christian Century
Chronique d'Egypte
Church History
Corpus Inscript. Graecarum
Corpus Inscript. Latinarum
Corpus Inscript. Semiticarum
Canadian Journal of Theology
Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat.
Christianity Today
Ecumenical Review
Ephemer. Theol. Lovanienses
Expository Times
Hibbert Journal
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
Israel Exploration Journal
Interpretation
Jahrb. fiir Ant. and Christentum
JAOS
JBL
JBR
JCS
JEA
JJs
JNES
JQR
JR
Jss
JThS
LQ
MGH
MQR
NKZ
NPNF
NRTh
NT
NTA
NTS
Num
OCh
OLZ
Or
OTS
PEQ
QDAP
RA
RAC
RB
RE
RdE
RHE
RHPR
Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc.

Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Bible and Religion
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Journal of Egyptian Arch.
Journal of Jewish Studies
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Jewish Quarterly Review
Journal of Religion
Journal of Semitic Studies
Journal of Theol. Studies
Lutheran Quarterly
Monumenta GermaniaeHistorica
Mennonite Quarterly Review
Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift
Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers
Nouvelle Revue Theologique
Novum Testamentum
New Testament Abstracts
New Testament Studies
Numen
Oriens Christianus
Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
Orientalia
Oudtestamentische Studien
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Quarterly, Dep. of Ant. in Pal.
Revue d'Assyr. et d'Arch. Or.
Rivista di Archaeologia Cristiana
Revue Biblique
Review and Expositor
Revue d'Egyptologie
Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique
Revue d'Hist. et de Philos. Rel.
RHR
RL
RLA
RQ
RSR
SJTh
STh
ThEH
ThQ
ThT
ThLZ
ThR
Trad
Thy
ThZ
VC
VD
VCh
VT
WThJ
WZKM
Revue de l'Histoire des Religions

Religion in Life
Reallexikon der Assyriologie
Revue de Qumran
Revue des Sciences Religieuses
Scottish Journal of Theology
Studia Theologica
Theologische Existenz heute
Theologische Quartalschrift
Theology Today
Theologische Literaturzeitung
Theologische Rundschau
Traditio
Theological Studies
Theologische Zeitschrift
Verbum Caro
Verbum Domini
Vigiliae Christianae
Vetus Testamentum
Westminster Theol. Journal
Wiener Zeitschr. f. d. Kunde d.
Morgenlandes
ZA
Zeitschrift 5iir A%syriologie
ZAS
Zeitsch. ffir agyptische Sprache
ZAW
Zeitsch. ffir die alttes. Wiss.
ZDMG Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl.
Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitsch. des Deutsch. Pal. Ver.
ZKG
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte
ZHTh Zeitsch. fiir hist. Theologie
ZKTh Zeitsch. fur kath. Theologie
ZNW
Zeitsch. far die neutest. Wiss.
ZSTh
Zeitschrift fiir syst. Theologie
ZThK Zeitsch. fur Theol. and Kirche

AUSS 1965-V03 N 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUSS 1965-V03 N 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUSS 1965-V03 N 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY, BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN, USA

G. RUNNING Editorial Assistant

W. G. C. MURDOCH E. HEPPENSTALL R. LITKE V.

J. W. PROVONSHA A. P. SALOM W. F. SPECHT

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES publishes papers

The opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors

RELIGION, SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHICAL

philosophy seeks to sail if it is not to founder and lose its

phrase, it would have robbed him of his freedom to seek truth.

means the willingness to hold a belief which reaches beyond

that which is not alien to his conception of what is indeed the

tion that we have. We should not be reluctant to define

nor what these answers will be. Rather, the philosopher is

And so it is that philosophical truth has a strange way of

THE PRACTICE OF BEGINNING THE SABBATH

During and since the early American colonial period, varied

Another illustration of this practice is found in a law issued

particular court shall judge meet, according to the nature of his

However, the sunset, or evening, beginning time for the day

The Ephrata method of daily reckoning began with the

BEGINNING THE SABBATH

the statement, "the Sabbath terminating at sunset of the

writer of the American Tract Society in 1854, in a discussion

BEGINNING THE SABBATH

It was from the writing of Preble that the attention of

There is no evidence that Bates formed his six o'clock

seaman's computation of equatorial time. This type of

When Bates visited the church in Ashfield, Mass., in the

BEGINNING THE SABBATH

Seeing the need for a thorough study of the subject, to

Ellen G. White, writing to the believers late in 1855,

Following the appearance of Andrews' study, as the years

BEGINNING THE SABBATH

troubled us, yet we have never found time to thoroughly

34 James White, "Time of the Sabbath," Review and Herald, VII

SOME NOTES ON SABBATH OBSERVANCE IN EARLY

In the inaugural issue of Seminary Studies, W. B. Bishai

Bishai is not unaware of the fact that he is struggling with

SABBATH IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

of the variety of languages and forms in which this material

tradition 5 (embedded in Ap. Const. I-VI); (2) the Didache

SABBATH IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

sources, however, he fails to see that the evidence he is

Let the slaves 13 work

elsewhere this version of Didasc. argues that Jesus actually rose on

But on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day

Thus the statement that such passages are exclusive to

SABBATH IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Timotheus, Bishop of Alexandria in 381-85, speaks of the

and Lord's Day, during Lent (Canons 49, 51). A similar

Finally, if we are allowed for the moment to treat the Apostolic

SABBATH IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

This is not to deny that the widespread practice of Coptic

tioch ?) before he came to Rome.24 Thus the dual observance

SABBATH IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

is certainly illegitimate to see behind this context a simple

26 Magnesians 8-io (compare Philadelphians 5-6). The most pertinent